4531 GI/2026
(6637)
रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजहक
WEEKLY
सं. 25]
नई ददल् ली, जून 28—जुलाई 4, 2026, िजनवार/ आषाढ 7—आषाढ 13, 1948
No. 25]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 28— JULY 4, 2026, SATURDAY/ ASHADHA 7–– ASHADHA 13, 1948
इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्
सं् या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह ृृथक 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 सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं
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 ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1328.— राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक अजधजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की धारा 6 की
उृधारा (1) के खंड (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री राकेि कश्यृ (जन्मजतजथ:
02.01.1969), सीजीएम, केनरा बैंक को राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक के उृ प्रबंध जनदेिक के रुृ में, इस ृद का
काययभार ग्रहण करने से लेकर उनकी अजधवर्षषता की आयु तक, अथायत् ददनांक 31.01.2029 तक या अगले आदेिों तक,
जो भी ृहले हो, जनयुि करती हज।
[फा. सं. 7/3/2025-एसी]
रत्नाकर झा, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-19082026-275493
CG-DL-W-19082026-275493
6638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1328.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of section 6 of the National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri
Rakesh Kashyap (DoB: 02.01.1969), CGM, Canara Bank as Deputy Managing Director, National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development with effect from the taking over of charge of the post till his
superannuation i.e. 31.01.2029 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/3/2025-AC]
RATNAKAR JHA, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई ददल्ली, 24 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1329.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ
ds iapkV (a29/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[ सं. ,y-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-61]
सलोनी, उप
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 24th June, 2026
S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Chennai 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)-61]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 29/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 26-05-2026
Sh.M. Kumaravelu,
S/o Murugaiyan,
Perumpuliyur,
Thillai Sthalam, Thiruviyaru,
Thanjavur – 613 203
:
1st Party/Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6639
AND
The Chief General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Human Resources Department,
Field General Manager Office,
No.139, Broadway, Chennai – 600 104
:
2nd Party / 1st Respondent
The Zonal Manager,
Union Bank of India,
2nd Floor, No.139, Broadway,
Chennai – 600 104
:
2nd Party / 2nd Respondent
The Regional Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Tiruchirapalli
:
2nd Party / 3rd Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s D. Ravidranathan, Adv
For the 2nd Party / 1st to 3rd Respondents : M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co, Adv
AWARD
Whereas an Industrial Dispute between the workman and the management has been filed
before this Tribunal by the First Party directly under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 2010 for adjudication, and the same has been taken on the file of this Tribunal
as ID 29/2022, due notices were issued to both parties for their appearance.
ID called out. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is no more and has no one to prosecute, hence the case
is abated. Record to be consigned to the record room.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1330.—औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
ओएनजीसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और जनरल एम्प्लॉइज एसोससएशन के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, म ंबई-1, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 25/2013) को जैसा गक अनुलग्नक
में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30011/12/2013-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
6640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2013) 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 ONGC and General Employees Association which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30011/12/2013-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 - 25 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
ONGC
V/s.
T.W. (General Employees Association)
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Absent
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 23rd day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-30011/12/2013 dated 12/04/2013
passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the Management of ONGC, Nhava, in denying the demand of the
workman Shri Sushil Narayan Khedekar that he be absorbed/given permanency of ONGC
on the ground of the contract being sham and bogus, is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
The workman has filed his statement of claim. However, despite several opportunities granted by this Tribunal, the
claimant/workman has failed to file any evidence by way of affidavit or to lead any oral or documentary evidence in
support of the averments made in the statement of claim.
The management has remained absent and has not filed any written statement despite repeated opportunities.
It is not in dispute that the workman has filed his statement of claim. However, mere filing of pleadings is not
sufficient to establish the allegations made therein. The workman, upon whom the initial burden of proof squarely
lies, was required to substantiate his claim by leading cogent evidence.
In the present case, no evidence—oral or documentary—has been led by the workman to prove that the contract was
sham and bogus or that he was entitled to absorption/permanency. In view of the settled legal position laid down in V.
K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court, Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II),
and District Administrative Committee v. Secretary-cum-G.M., District Co-operative Bank Ltd., the failure of the
workman to lead evidence is fatal to the reference.
In the absence of any evidence in support of the statement of claim, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the
workman. Consequently, the management is not required to lead any evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6641
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1331.—औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कंपनी सलसमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री एस.डी. वैराल के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, म ंबई-1, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 25/2005) को जैसा गक
अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-17012/7/2005-आईआर(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2005) 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 National Insurance Company Ltd. and Shri S. D.Vairal which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-17012/7/2005-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNEMTN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-25 of 2005
PARTIES:-
National Insurance Company Ltd,
V/s.
Their Workman(S.D.Vairal)
APPEARNCE:-
For the Management
: Mr. S.V. Alva(Adv.)
For the Workman
: Mr. Arvind Tapole(Adv.)
Mumbai, dated 26/02/2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government vide Order No. L-17012/7/2005-IR(B-I) dated
04.10.2005, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).
The terms of reference are as under:
1. ―Whether the affected workman Smt. Shobha D. Vairal, Part-Time Sweeper, has put in
continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?‖
2. ―Whether the action of the management of National Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, in
terminating/discontinuing the services of Smt. Shobha D. Vairal, Part-Time Sweeper, w.e.f.
08.07.2003 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief is the affected workman entitled
and from which date?‖
6642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Today, the matter is listed for settlement. Both parties are present through their learned counsel, and the workman is
also present in person.
During the course of hearing, both parties, with the free consent of the workman, jointly submitted before the open
Court that the dispute has been amicably settled. The management has agreed to pay a lump-sum amount of ₹60,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the workman towards full and final settlement of all her claims, dues, and demands,
past, present, and future, arising out of the subject matter of the present reference.
The learned counsel for the management submitted that the said amount shall be paid subject to the workman
submitting a No-Dues / No-Claim declaration against the management. The workman has voluntarily accepted the
said terms and has stated that she does not wish to contest the matter further.
In view of the above settlement, the reference is answered accordingly and disposed of in terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties.
AWARD IS PASSED ACCORDINGLY.
Justice ARVIND KUJMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1332.— औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस सनमंत्रण स्नैक्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और पेटरोसलयम एम्प्लॉइज यूसनयन के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, म ंबई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 62/2018) को जैसा गक
अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को
प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30011/28/2018-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 62/2018) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the employers in relation to M/s. Nimantran Snacks and Petroleum Employees Union which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30011/28/2018-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/62 of 2018
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No. 1. M/s. Nimantran Snacks
The Proprietor,
M/s. Nimantran Snacks
Shop No.7, Shivnum Building,
Opp. Sita Estate,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6643
R.C. Marg, Aziz Baug, Chembur,
Mumbai : 400 074,
State: Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN.
Party No.2 (Petroleum Employees Union)
The General Secretary,
Petroleum Employees Union,
Tel-Rasayan Bhavan, Tilak Road,
Dadar (E),
Mumbai : 400 014,
State: Maharashtra.
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
No appearance.
Workmen/Union :
No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 12-03-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L- 30011/28/2018-IR(M) dated 26.11.2018. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether Shri Mukesh Rai designated as „Supervisor‟ under the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen
Contractor at canteen of BPCL Mumbai Refinery, Mahul is „workman‟ under ID Act?
If yes, whether the action of the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen Contractor operating canteen of
BPCL Mumbai Refinery, Mahul w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Rai, Supervisor, w.e.f.
11.06.2016, is just and proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
The case is called out today. Both parties are absent on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent
that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 15.02.2019 long back despite service of notices. No
Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has
been filed by the petitioner/workman to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It
appears that, he is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the case
is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
Shri Mukesh Rai designated as ‗Supervisor‘ under the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen
Contractor at canteen of BPCL Mumbai Refinery, Mahul is not ‗workman‘ under ID Act.
The action of the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen Contractor operating canteen of BPCL
Mumbai Refinery, Mahul w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Rai, Supervisor, w.e.f.
11.06.2016, is just and proper. The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
Date: 12-03-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
6644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1333.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससय भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मुंबई श्रजमक संघ संघषय के बीच अनुबंध
में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2004) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. एल-30011/98/2003-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1333.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Mumbai Shramik Sangh Sangharsh which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30011/98/2003-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/24 of 2004
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No. 1. M/s. BPCL.,
The Director,
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Refinery Division
Mahul , Chembur,
Mumbai – 400 074,
State: Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No. 2. (Mumbai Shramik Sangh)
The Secretary,
Mumbai Shramik Sangh,
Sangharsh, Quarry Road,
Bhandup (W),
Mumbai – 400 078,
State: Maharashtra.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6645
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
Mr. Anand Pai.
Advocate.
Workmen/Union :
Mr. R. D. Bhat.
Representative.
AWARD
(Delivered on 12-03-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/98/2003 (IR(M)) dated 15.04.2004. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
a. “Whether the contract between BPCL and respondent No.2 contractor is sham and bogus and
is a camouflage to deprive the workers concerned in the petition of benefits available to
permanent workmen of BPCL;
b. Whether the workers concerned in the petition should be declared permanent workers of
BPCL;
c. What are the wages and consequential benefits t be paid to the workers concerned in the
petition?”
2. Case called out today. Adv. Ms. Lavanya holding brief of the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand Pai is
present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it
is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the court since 26.06.2023 long back. Although,
Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively and after that, first award has
been passed by this court on 20.05.2013, in which it has been hold by this court this court that, the employer/ housing
colony is held ‗industry‘ as defined u/s. 2 (J) of the ID Act and the Reference is tenable and parties were directed to
remain present for further proceedings of the case, but since 26.06.2023, petitioner/workmen is not coming to the
court for further proceedings of the case. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner till today to prove the
contents of the Statement of Claim. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the
petitioner/workman is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/ workman is not
proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
a. The contract between BPCL and respondent No.2 contractor is not sham and bogus
and is not a camouflage to deprive the workers concerned in the petition of benefits
available to permanent workmen of BPCL.
b. The workers concerned in the petition should not be declared permanent workers of
BPCL.
c. No wages and no consequential benefits to be paid to the workers concerned in the
petition.
Date: 12-03-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
6646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1334.—औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
स ंद स्तान पेटरोसलयम कॉपोरेशन सलसमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और पेटरोसलयम एम्प्लॉइज यूसनयन के बीच
अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, म ंबई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
25/2019) को जैसा गक अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30011/12/2017-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Petroleum Employees Union which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30011/12/2017-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/25 of 2019
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No. 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
The General Manager,
M/s. HPCL, Mumbai Refinery,
Mahul, Post Box No.18820,
B.D. Patil Marg,
Mumbai : 400 074,
State: Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2 (Petroleum Employees Union)
The General Secretary,
Petroleum Employees Union,
HPCL, Mumbai Refinery Unit,
Tel- Rasayan Bhavan, Tilak Road,
Dadar (E)
Mumbai : 400 014,
State: Maharashtra.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6647
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
Miss Deepika Agrawal.
Advocate
Workmen/Union :
No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 12-03-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L- 30011/12/2017-IR(M) dated 25.04.2019. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of HPCL, Mahul Refinery Mumbai, in reducing the
manpower by one position in 3 shift working involving 5 manpower in the Boiler Section of
Operational Department, under the plea of redeployment of surplus workmen in similar jobs due
to discontinuing operation of certain old boilers and its associated utilities, is just and proper? If
not, what relief Petroleum Employees Union is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are
necessary in the matter?”
2.
The case is called out today. The learned counsel for the respondent Miss Deepika Agrawal is present before
the court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/union on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is
apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the Court since 23.08.2023 long back. No
Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence
has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. The petitioner/union is not coming to the court since long back. It
appears that, the petitioner/union is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/union is
not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of HPCL, Mahul Refinery Mumbai, in reducing the
manpower by one position in 3 shift working involving 5 manpower in the Boiler Section of
Operational Department, under the plea of redeployment of surplus workmen in similar
jobs due to discontinuing operation of certain old boilers and its associated utilities, is just
and proper. The Petroleum Employees Union is not entitled to any relief.
Date: 12-03-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1335.—औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार फेरो स्क्रैप
सनगम सलसमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और फेरो स्क्रैप सनगम सलसमटेड कमसचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 20/2020) को जैसा गक
अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26011/14/2019-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
6648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited and Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees‘ Union which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26011/14/2019-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 20 OF 2020
PARTIES: Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees‘ Union
Vs.
Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur
REPRESENTATIVES:
For FSNL Employees‘ Union:
Mr. Asit Kumar Kolay, Advocate.
Mr. Susanta Kumar Ganguly, Advocate.
For the Management of FSNL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Iron and Steel.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
03.02.2026
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-26011/14/2019-IR(M) dated 28.05.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur and their superannuated employees for adjudication
by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
― Whether the action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur in non-payment of arrear
leave encashment/arrear of HRA arising out of pay revision to the superannuated employees as raised by Ferro Scrap
Nigam Limited Employees' Union vide letter dated 21.01.2019 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief such
workmen are entitled to? ‖
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6649
1.
On receiving Order No. L-26011/14/2019-IR(M) dated 28.05.2020 from the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 17.06.2021 and an order was
passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written
statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Mr. Haradhan Sain, General Secretary of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees‘ Union (CITU & SWFI),
Durgapur Unit filed written statement on 13.01.2023. Brief fact of petitioner‘s case as disclosed in the written
statement is
that twenty-two (22) superannuated employees of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as FSNL) have
not been paid Leave Salary and forty-three (43) superannuated employees have not been paid House Rent Allowance
(hereinafter referred to as HRA) in accordance with to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011. It is the case
of the concerned union that the wage revision was granted to the employees who were on the rolls of the company on
31.12.2006 and they are entitled to HRA as per letter dated 25.07.2016 and Leave Salary according to the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011. The retired employees entitled to such dues, requested the
management of FSNL vide letter No. FSNLEU/41/18 dated 12.07.2018 for payment. The management neither paid
any amount nor responded to the representation made through the union. An Industrial Dispute was raised before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Raniganj at Durgapur claiming HRA and Leave Salary. The conciliation
proceeding resulted in a failure and a Failure of Conciliation Report was sent to the Ministry. The appropriate
government thereafter referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
3.
Regarding non-payment of Leave Salary, the union pointed out that the Tripartite Wage Agreement was
signed on 11.02.2011, disclosing that it would be effective from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and employees including
those who retired prior to implementation of the agreement but covered under it were paid their regular wage arrears,
but the management deprived the retired employees of their difference of Leave Salary, consequent upon wage
revision. Since the wage revision was pending at the time of their retirement, they were paid Leave Salary in respect
of Earned Leave (EL) and Half Pay Leave (HPL) lying in their credit on the basis of their pre-revised wages. It is
urged that on revision of wages twenty-two (22) ex-employees, whose list is enclosed, are entitled to difference of
Leave Salary. The union further contended that management of FSNL made a revision of HRA at the rate of twenty
percent (20%) of revised Basic Pay from earlier rate
of ten percent (10%) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2010 instead of 01.09.2011. The said rule was implemented
in the month of July / August, 2015. It is claimed that the consequential arrear dues as per revision should be paid to
the superannuated employees and they are entitled to revised rate of HRA from 01.04.2010 till their retirement.
Accordingly, union has prayed for payment of the aforesaid dues to the superannuated employees with interest
thereon from the date it remained unpaid.
4.
Management contested the case by filing written statement on 31.03.2023 through Mr. Saurabh Radhesham
Tharewal, constituted attorney. According to the management of FSNL the Industrial Dispute is not maintainable in
its present form. The dispute is vague and indefinite and not sustainable. The main objection raised by the
management is that there is no provision in the wage agreement dated 11.02.2011 for payment of HRA or Leave
Salary to the superannuated employees. Referring to Clause No. 4.1.3 of the agreement it is averred that merely due to
6650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
enhancement of Basic Pay on wage revision the employees shall not be entitled to difference of other facilities based
upon revision of wages. Management further contended that in the meantime another Wage Agreement for the period
from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016 has come into force and the earlier Wage Agreement has lost its force. It is claimed
that the Industrial Dispute raised is not tenable and is hopelessly barred by limitation.
5.
The central point for consideration is whether the superannuated employees of FSNL are entitled to arrears
of Leave Salary and HRA as claimed by the union in their letter dated 21.01.2019 and whether non-payment of such
benefits by management is legal and justified.
6.
The union has examined Mr. Haradhan Sain, union representative as Workman Witness No. 1. In his
affidavit-in-chief he reiterated the claim of the
superannuated employees for payment of difference of Leave Salary on the basis of Wage Agreement signed on
11.02.2011 for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and for payment of difference of HRA at the revised rate of
twenty percent (20%) which has been given retrospective effect from 01.04.2010. It is stated that there are twenty-two
(22) retired employees who have prayed for difference of Leave Salary and forty-three (43) employees prayed for
payment of difference of HRA from 01.04.2010. The workman witness produced the following documents in support
of union‘s case :
(i)
Copy of representation dated 12.07.2018 submitted by the witness as General Secretary, addressed
to the Unit Head of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited for payment of arrears of House Rent and Leave
Salary, is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.11, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement along with the Terms of Settlement, as Exhibit W-2/1.
(iv)
Copy of a list of twenty-two retired employees who claimed arrear of Leave Salary and Gratuity, as
Exhibit W-3.
(v)
Copy of Inter-Office Memo dated 21.07.2015 by which it was decided that House Rent Allowance
would be paid at enhanced / revised rate w.e.f. 01.04.2010, as Exhibit W-4.
(vi)
Copy of a list of forty-three employees who have not received the revised House Rent Allowance
w.e.f. 01.04.2010 till the date of retirement, as Exhibit W-5.
(vii)
Copy of the Authorization Letter for representing the case of employees, as Exhibit W-6.
(viii)
Copy of Inter-Office Memo dated 25.07.2016 for payment of House Rent Allowance, as Exhibit W-
7 and W-9.
(ix)
Copy of letter dated 21.01.2019 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Raniganj at
Durgapur regarding non-payment of Leave Salary and HRA, as Exhibit W-8.
(x)
Copy of letter dated 30.05.1994 issued by the Dy. Manager (P&A), FSNL addressed to the General
Secretary of FSNL Employees‘ Union, regarding recognition of the union, as Exhibit W-10.
7.
Witness denied the suggestion that their union is not a recognized trade union under the Trade Union Act and
that forty-three (43) listed petitioners were not members of FSNL Employees‘ Union during their service period. The
witness denied that the names of the employees in Enclosure-5 of the written statement were not the members of his
union or that they have not authorized him to represent their case. During re-cross-examination on 19.02.2025 a
suggestion was made to the witness that HRA was to be paid from 01.04.2010 as per Memorandum of Settlement and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6651
the witness admitted the same. The evidence of Workman Witness No. 1 reveals that the witness is one of the
signatories of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011. Therefore, it is amply clear that FSNL Employees‘
Union, Durgapur was a registered and recognized trade union at the relevant time.
8.
No evidence has been adduced by the management of FSNL. The case was fixed up for hearing of argument
during the Special Campaign.
9.
Mr. Asit Kumar Kolay, learned advocate for the union argued that the superannuated employees whose
names have been disclosed in Enclosure-3 of the written statement have retired from their service between 30.10.2006
and 16.02.2011 before implementation of the Wage Agreement dated 11.02.2011 which was applicable to them from
01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and that they are entitled to difference of Leave Salary on the basis of revised pay. It is
submitted that out of twenty-two (22) employees namely B. Hembrom, S. K. Chakrabarty, Ratan Gope, D. D. Bouri
and R. Ruidas have died in harness. Learned advocate further claimed that forty-three (43) retired employees who
have been enlisted in
Enclosure-5 of the written statement are entitled to difference of enhanced HRA from 01.04.2010 till their retirement.
10.
Learned advocate for the management in reply contended that the names of the employees are not mentioned
in the Schedule and it is argued that the employees who have superannuated are not entitled to the benefit of
difference of HRA and Leave Salary on the basis of the Wage Agreement.
11.
I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the union and management, pleadings of the parties
and evidence adduced. The list of twenty-two (22) employees claiming payment difference of Leave Salary from
01.01.2007 on the basis of revision of pay has been marked as Exhibit W-3 and the list of forty-three (43) retired
employees, claiming payment of difference of HRA from 01.04.2010 is marked as Exhibit W-5. Management of
FSNL had sufficient notice regarding the identities of the employees but no question was posed to the workman
witness challenging the identity of any of the employees whose names are mentioned in Exhibits W-3 and W-5. The
Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the management of FSNL, Durgapur and their workmen represented
by FSNL Employees‘ Union, Durgapur on 11.02.2011 has been marked as Exhibit W-2/1 collectively. On a perusal
of terms of settlement in Clause No. 2.2.1 which relates to HRA it is mentioned that the employees covered by the
Agreement, who are not allotted Company‘s quarter, shall be paid house rent allowance equal to the HRA rates as per
city classification and applicable rates under Government guidelines which is twenty percent (20%) of HRA
applicable to the cities classified as ―Y‖ to the employees of FSNL and it is further stated that the payment of HRA on
the basis of revised Basic Pay will be made from 01.04.2010. Therefore, as per the Memorandum of Settlement the
employees who were on the payroll of the employer company on 01.04.2010 are entitled to the difference of HRA
from 01.04.2010 till their date of death or superannuation according to the settled rate of enhanced HRA.
12.
The second relief claimed in this case is the payment of difference of Leave Salary to the superannuated
employees on the basis of Wage Agreement signed on 11.02.2011. Admittedly, there has been a wage revision of the
employees of FSNL which stood due from 01.01.2007 on expiry of the previous wage agreement on 31.12.2006.
According to the Memorandum of Settlement (Exhibit W-2/1), the agreement is valid for a period of five years from
01.01.2007 and it remained operational till 31.12.2011. It is undisputed that the employees who were on the payroll of
6652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the company from 01.01.2007 till 31.12.2011 are entitled to the revised wages in terms of wage and allowance
benefits. Clause No. 2.1.2 provides that the revised wage structure would apply from 01.01.2007 for different
categories of employees as per Annexure-B. This statement suggests that employees who were in service from
01.01.2007 are entitled to revised pay. Clause No. 4.0 of the Memorandum of Settlement deals with implementation
of the agreement. It has been agreed upon that the revised wage structure shall come into effect from 01.01.2007 and
shall continue to be in operation till 31.12.2011 and in respect of the other provisions, the date of effect would be the
dates indicated in the respective clauses of the agreement. Payment of Leave Salary is made on the basis of the Basic
Pay and Dearness Allowance for a period of three hundred days (300) days of outstanding leave at the time of
superannuation of the employee. If the Basic Pay is revised on 01.01.2007, the consequential benefit arises in Leave
Salary would accrue to the employees, commensurate with their outstanding leave. Therefore, the superannuated
employees, including who have died in harness after 01.01.2007 are entitled to difference of their Leave Salary on the
basis of revision of wages. Mr. S. K. Banerjee, appearing in the list marked as Exhibit W-3 retired on 30.10.2006
before the wage agreement came into effect from 01.01.2007. Therefore, he will not be entitled to the payment of
difference of Leave Salary. Management in their written statement has stated that in Clause No. 4.1.3 of the
Memorandum of Settlement it is mentioned that merely due to enhancement of Basic Pay, entitlement of the
employee for different facilities shall
not change and their eligibility shall remain same. The terms of agreement have stated that the HRA would be
enhanced by a certain percentage of the Basic Pay and the same would be payable from 01.04.2010. Therefore,
management cannot deny its responsibility of paying HRA at an enhanced rate to its forty-three (43) ex-employees.
Regarding, payment of difference of Leave Salary, management has referred to Clause 4.1.3 of the agreement and
argued that entitlement of the employees for other facilities shall not change due to enhancement of Basic Pay and
their eligibility shall remain same. In order to meet this argument, it is necessary to refer to the provision of Clause
4.1.2 of the Memorandum of Settlement where it is stated that the benefits provided for under the previous agreement
will continue, until otherwise specified in this agreement. The Wage Agreement which came into force from
01.01.2007 does not contain any provision to curtail the benefit of Leave Salary granted to the employees at the time
of their retirement. Leave Salary is calculated on the basis of the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance prevalent at the
time of superannuation of the employee. The twenty-one (21) of enlisted employees except Mr. S. K. Banerjee would
therefore be entitled to difference of Leave Salary on the basis of revised pay.
13.
Management in their written statement has contended that another Wage Agreement between management
and representative of the union has been reached for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016. Therefore, the earlier
Wage Agreement has lost its force. This argument is devoid of any force as the previous Wage Agreement is applies
to the employees who were on the payroll of the employer company at the relevant time and their entitlement arises
out of the agreement of wage revision of the employees dated 11.02.2011. Since, the management of the employer
company did not make payment of difference of HRA and Leave Salary to its retired employees on the basis of
revision of pay effected from 01.01.2007, they are certainly entitled to receive such benefits. Their rights would not
be affected or prejudiced due to a subsequent wage revision applicable
from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016, which is not applicable to the enlisted ex-employees herein. It would be just and
appropriate to direct the management of the employer company to assess the dues of the concerned workmen and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6653
make payment on account of arrears of difference of Leave Salary and HRA within four months from the date of
communication of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited,
Durgapur. Twenty-two (21) ex-employees except those who retired prior to 31.12.2006 or their legal heirs, in
appropriate cases are entitled to difference of Leave Salary on the basis of revised pay from 01.01.2007 onwards
according to their date of superannuation till 31.12.2011. Forty-three (43) enlisted ex-employees are entitled to arrears
of difference of House Rent Allowance from 01.04.2010 till their superannuation. Management is directed to make
payment of arrears to the concerned ex-employees or their legal heirs, in appropriate cases within two (2) months
from the date of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above decision. Let copies of
the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1336.— औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससस
तापस क मार चंदा ससक्योररटी एजेंसी; इंसडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन (पाइपलाइन) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और
स्वपन सरकार के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 05/2023) को जैसा गक अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/01/2022-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 05/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency; Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline) and Swapan Sarkar which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30012/01/2022-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2023
PARTIES: Swapan Sarkar
Vs.
(1) M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency
(2) Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline), PHBPL, Bolpur
6654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Workman:
Swapan Sarkar (in person).
For M/s. TKCSA:
None.
For IOCL:
Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Oil and Gas.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
03.02.2026
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-30012/01/2022-IR(M) dated 12.01.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer
i.e., (1) M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency and (2) Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline), PHBPL, Bolpur and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
― Whether action of the management of M/s Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency terminating the services
of Sri Swapan Sarkar and not reinstating him in duty, as raised by him vide letter dated 31.12.2020 is proper, legal
and justified? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to and what direction, if any, is necessary in the matter? ‖
1.
On receiving Order No. L-30012/01/2022-IR(M) dated 12.01.2023 from the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute, a Reference case was registered on 20.01.2023 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
The aggrieved workman initially appeared through Ms. Saswati Thakur, learned advocate and filed his
written statement on 30.05.2023. The narratives which unfold from the written statement is that the workman is
an ex-army
personnel and he joined his service as a private Security Guard in the premises of Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as IOCL) the Principal Employer through various contractor firms from time to time. The
workman discharged his work efficiently and received his salary from the Principal Employer. On 09.12.2020 when
the workman was preforming his duty at the Colony Main Gate of IOCL (Pipeline) at Bolpur a group of five (5)
Eunuchs wanted to enter the Colony and he stop them as a security measure and asked them to obtain necessary
permission from higher authority. They informed that there was a new born baby in the home of Mr. Suniti Tudu,
Security Officer and they wanted to enter the colony. The petitioner workman made a telephone call to Mr. Tudu and
informed the incident and also informed the matter to Mr. Ajay Pahuja, DGM but they remain silent and thereafter the
group of Eunuch assaulted the petitioner and entered the Colony forcibly. The workman checked the Identity Cards of
the Eunuchs and hand it over to the Mr. Suniti Tudu, Security Officer. After the Eunuchs left the premises. Mr. Suniti
Tudu, Security Officer of IOCL made a complaint against the petitioner workman before the Office In-charge of the
Police Station in connection with the incident which occurred on that date. The contractor firm thereafter terminated
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6655
him from service without giving any opportunity. Several appeals were made by the petitioner before the Principal
Employer but the contractor and the Principal Employer did not pay any heed to his appeals. Petitioner being
aggrieved with such termination of service without any notice, initiated an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Durgapur. The conciliation failed and the matter has been referred to this Tribunal for
adjudication. It has been prayed that the Opposite Party employers be directed to reinstate the workman with full back
wages.
3.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Chanda, the proprietor of the Contractor Firm, M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security
Agency (hereinafter referred to as M/s. TKCSA) (Opposite Party) filed written statement on 26.09.2023. It is
contended that the
allegations made in the written statement filed by the petitioner are false. He has not disclosed the actual reason for
his discontinuation from service under the Principal Employer. It is the case of the contractor firm that Swapan Sarkar
was engaged as a Security Guard under M/s. Rakesh Kumar Jha Security Agency, having its Office at 26, S.N.
Banerjee Street, Badrakali, PS- Uttarpara till 30.09.2020. After termination of the contract, Rakesh Kumar Jha left
IOCL premises without taking any responsibility of continuation of service of the petitioner employed under him due
to over age and when M/s. TKCSA was entrusted with the contract to provide security service as per terms and
conditions in the agreement dated 01.10.2020 and the workman disregarding the terms of agreement, regarding not
engaging security personnel above sixty (60) years, forcibly occupied the post in the premises of the Principal
Employer with the help of the local political party. As per work order there was a requirement of thirteen (13)
Security Guards at the premises of IOCL. The contractor security agency did not have the option to engage any
person of their choice under political pressure. Opposite Party did not get any opportunity to verify the documents of
the staff prior to their recruitment. After scrutiny of the documents, the Principal Employer informed that the
petitioner has already crossed the age limit as per Clause 2.3.7 (page 24) of the Service Agreement and accordingly by
letter dated 05.10.2020 the Principal Employer requested the proprietor of M/s. TKCSA to provide Security Guards as
per requirement. The petitioner was discontinued for being over-age and the matter was communicated to him
accordingly. He was given one month‘s time for settling at any other place but he refused to handover his charge to
the replaced guard and he tried to occupy his post without paying any heed to the request of Principal Employer or the
Security Agency. Ultimately with the help of Police, Principal Employer replaced the petitioner. The Opposite party
is an ex-serviceman and has an empanelled Security Agency under the Director General of Resettlement (hereinafter
referred to as DGR), under the Ministry of Defence. The scheme was introduced to resettle the ex-serviceman
under Public Sector Undertaking, who retired from their service before the date of his superannuation. An
Empanelment Certificate in favour of Opposite Party was issued which was valid up to 02.08.2021. The License /
Empanelment Certificate issued in favour of M/s. TKCSA expired w.e.f. 03.08.2021 and the business was closed
down by the proprietor. As per DGR guidelines Security Agencies would remove the ex-serviceman from the active
panel of DGR when he attained the age of sixty (60) years and the validity of his empanelment had ceased. However,
the contract will be allowed to run to completion. The petitioner being a registered member of DGR has ample scope
for better carrier opportunity in any other agency or organization as per DGR guidelines. Further contention is that on
01.01.2020 as per Work Order No. 26593618 dated 30.09.2020 all staff engaged under previous agency switch over
to the Opposite Party by dint of preferential right of their earlier engagement under erstwhile contractor within the
premises of the Principal Employer. All erstwhile security staff remained engaged at their respective place and
6656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
continued their service. The established condition is that contractors will change but the Security Guards would
continue. The specific case of the contractor firm is that the petitioner has completed sixty (60) years at the time of
reporting for his duty on 01.10.2020. He had crossed the maximum age for his employment. Accordingly, the
petitioner had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. He has made misleading statements and his application
for reinstatement is liable to be dismissed.
4.
IOCL filed their written statement on 20.11.2023. The specific case of the Principal Employer is that the
petitioner is an employee under M/s. TKCSA and the Principal Employer has executed a work order bearing No.
26593618 dated 30.09.2020 for the period from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2022, as per terms and conditions of the contract.
It is urged that the application is liable to be dismissed.
5.
Swapan Sarkar examined himself as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed his
affidavit-in-chief stating that he has been working as a private security guard through a contractor firm. He has
reiterated the statements made in his written statement and claimed that he has been discontinued from his
employment in a wrongful manner. In his examination-in-chief he produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of Appointment Letter issued by the Security Agency is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of letter dated 10.12.2020 by which the Security Agency gave Swapan Sarkar prior Notice of
termination, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of letter dated 11.12.2020 of Swapan Sarkar addressed to the DGM, IOCL (PHBPL), Bolpur
sent under registered post, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of a letter dated 11.12.2020 addressed to Tapas Kumar Chandra Security Agency sent under
registered post, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of application dated 01.02.2021 of Swapan Sarkar addressed to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Durgapur for saving his job (copy of application is marked as Exhibit W-5).
(vi)
Copy of application dated 02.03.2021 of Swapan Sarkar addressed to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Durgapur, relating to his termination, as Exhibit W-6.
6.
None appeared for M/s. TKCSA to cross-examine the witness. During cross-examination by IOCL, Principal
Employer, the witness deposed that he was never appointed by IOCL as a Security Guard and he served IOCL under
control and supervision of the M/s. TKCSA and produced copy of the Identity Card which has been marked as
Exhibit W-7. Witness further deposed that he used to receive salary from M/s. TKCSA through bank payment. The
petitioner stated that he has no grievance against IOCL and he has sought relief against M/s. TKCSA.
7.
No evidence has been adduced by M/s. TKCSA or by IOCL.
8.
The short question for consideration is as to whether the termination of Swapan Sarkar by M/s. TKCSA is
legal and to what relief the workman is entitled to.
9.
The workman appearing in person and argued that he had been wrongfully terminated from his service by the
private Security Agency in an illegal manner without issuing any Notice of termination. It is further stated that the
Security Guard deployed at the premises of IOCL at Bolpur work up to the age of sixty-five (65) years but in his case,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6657
he was illegally discontinued. None appeared for M/s. TKCSA, the contractor firm, which has engaged the workman,
maintaining the continuity of his service.
10.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, learned advocate for the management of IOCL argued that the petitioner
workman has no employer-employee relationship with IOCL. The workman was never appointed by IOCL and in his
cross-examination the WW-1 admitted such fact. The witness also stated that he has not prayed for any relief against
IOCL.
11.
I have considered the argument advanced by the petitioner and learned advocate for IOCL in light of the
pleadings and evidence on record. It may be gathered from the written statement of M/s. TKCSA that Swapan Sarkar
was engaged as a Security Guard under M/s. Rakesh Kumar Jha Security Agency till 30.09.2020. According to the
Work Order No. 26593618 dated 30.09.2020, the Principal Employer engaged M/s. TKCSA to provide private
Security Guards to IOCL, Bolpur from 01.10.2020. The Principal Employer in Paragraph No. 2 of their written
statement stated that the Work Order was issued in favour of M/s. TKCSA from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2022.
According to the Private Security Agency the
petitioner ex-serviceman had attained sixty (60) years of age and as per terms and conditions of the contract the
service of Swapan Sarkar could not be continued. The Opposite Party, Security Agency did not produce the copy of
the contract to prove that the petitioner had attained sixty years of age or for such reason he was not entitled to be
continued as a Security Guard from 01.10.2020. No attempt was made on the part of Security Agency to prove that
the proper Notice of termination was issued to him disclosing the reason of termination. From Exhibit W-1, the Letter
of appointment of Swapan Sarkar issued by M/s. TKCSA, I find that the date of birth of Swapan Sarkar is 05.01.1961.
Therefore, the workman did not complete sixty years of age on 01.10.2020. It is true that a letter dated 10.12.2020
(Exhibit W-2) was issued by the Security Agency to Swapan Sarkar and in the said letter, the termination of service
was given effect from the very next dated i.e., 11.12.2020. Though the service of the workman was contractual in
nature but from the material on record and the admission of the contractor firm I find that the contract between the
employer and contractor firm is formal and in Paragraph No. 7 of the written statement that the Opposite Party had no
scope to engage a single person of his choice due to political pressure and they were under compulsion to appoint the
same Security Guards who were working under previous contractor. Under such situation the aggrieved workman is
entitled to a clear one month‘s notice before his termination, in default he is entitled to be paid one month‘s wage
from the period of Notice and as per provision under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 the workman would be
entitled to retrenchment compensation on the basis of continuous service rendered. In the present case the petitioner
workman failed to establish how many years of continuous service he has rendered and whether he has continuously
worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months. I therefore hold that in the present case the only relief the
petitioner workman would get is Pay for one month in lieu of Notice of termination. Since the workman was not
appointed by the Principal Employer and he has claimed no relief against the Principal Employer, he is
therefore not entitled to reinstatement in the service of Security Guard under IOCL. For abrupt termination of
workman without Notice of termination much earlier to his attaining sixty (60) years of age on 04.01.2021, it would
be just and appropriate to grant a one-time compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the workman,
payable by M/s. TKCSA along with one (1) month‘s Pay in lieu of Notice prior to his termination.
6658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline), PHBPL, Bolpur,
Principal Employer. It is allowed ex-parte in part against M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency. The Private
Security Agency having terminated the workman without prior Notice of one month shall be liable to pay one (1)
month‘s Pay to the workman Swapan Sarkar along with a one-time compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) for abrupt termination of his work. The Security Agency shall pay the said amounts within two (2) months from
the date of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment , Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1337.— औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ
इंश्योरेंस कॉपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंसडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री ए. राजू के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ैदराबाद, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/2016) को जैसा गक अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया
है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
25 .06. 2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-17012/8/2019-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O.1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2016) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri A. Raju which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-17012/8/2019-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 2nd day of February , 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34/2016
Between:
Sri A. Raju
D.No. 13-230, Arilova TIC Point,
Vishakapatnam-530040.
..….Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6659
AND
1. The Manager (E & OS)
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, P.B. No. 411,
Jeevan Beema Road, Vishakapatnam-530016.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent(s): Shri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/8/2019 (IR(M) dated 26-04-2016
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of LIC and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam in termination
the services of Sri A. Raju, Ex-temporary sub staff/Life operator in January 2013 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 34/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice
and sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not file any claim statement or documents. Hence, in the absence of a
claim statement, a ‗No-Claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. Nisha, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the 2nd day of
Februrary, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1338.— औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस भारत पेटरोसलयम कॉपोरेशन सलसमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और पेटरोसलयम कमसचारी संघ के बीच
अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, म ंबई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
34/2013) को जैसा गक अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30011/15/2013-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
6660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Petroleum Employees Union which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30011/15/2013-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/34 of 2013
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No. 1. M/s. BPCL.,
The General Manager (HRS),
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhavan,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001,
State: Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2 (Petroleum Employees Union)
The General Secretary,
Petroleum Employees Union,
Tel Rasayan Bhavan,
Tilak Road,
Dadar (East),
Mumbai – 400 014,
State: Maharashtra.
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
Mr. Anand Pai.
Advocate.
Workmen/Union :
Mr. Sudhakar Ghag.
Representative.
AWARD
(Delivered on 12-03-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/15/2013 (IR(M)) dated 28.05.2013. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6661
“Whether the action of the management of BPCL (Marketing), Mumbai, in awarding the
punishment of reduction in basic salary by two stages upon Shri D. B. Rain (Staff No.36473) vide
order dated 18.11.2011 and keeping enquiry pending for a period of more than seven (7) years is
legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
The case is called out today. Ms. Lavanya holding brief of learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand Pai
is present before the court but no one is present on behalf of the union/party no.2. From perusal of record, it is
apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the Court since long back. Today case is fixed for
hearing on Ex-16. Ex-16 has been filed by the General Secretary Mr. Sudhakar K. Ghag on 29.12.2020, in which he
has stated that, union has no interest in continuing this matter further and has no more claims/demands against the
management of BPCL with respect to the issues raised in this Industrial Dispute or otherwise and it is also stated that,
this affidavit is being filed for the purpose of withdrawing the instant Reference. In view of the above union has
prayed that, the Industrial Dispute be disposed off as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the respondent has endorsed
on this application that, he has no objection. In view of the above, instant Reference is disposed off as withdrawn.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of BPCL (Marketing), Mumbai, in awarding the
punishment of reduction in basic salary by two stages upon Shri D. B. Rain (Staff No.36473)
vide order dated 18.11.2011 and keeping enquiry pending for a period of more than seven
(7) years is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Date: 12-03-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1339.— औद्योगगक गििाद अगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस भारत पेटरोसलयम कॉपोरेशन सलसमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और म ाराष्ट्र जनरल कामगार यूसनयन
के बीच अनुबंध में गनगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योसगक असधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, म ंबई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 47/2006) को जैसा गक अनुलग्नक में गदखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30011/38/2006-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 47/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Maharashtra General Kamgar Union which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-30011/38/2006- IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/47 of 2006
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
6662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party No. 1. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
The Dy. General Manager (HRS),
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhawan,
4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 038,
State: Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2 (Maharashtra General Kamgar Union)
The President,
252, Janta Colony,
Ramnarayan Marg,
Ghatkopar (E),
Mumbai – 400 077,
State: Maharashtra.
APPEARANCES:
Management
: Mr. Anand Pai.
Advocate.
Workmen/Union : No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 12-03-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/38/2006 (IR(M)) dated 29.08.2006. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of BPCL Marketing Division, Mumbai, in terminating
the services of Sh. Nasiruddin Pyaru Shaikh is justified? If not, what relief Shr. Nasiruddin Pyaru
Shaikh is entitled to?”
2.
Case called out today. Adv. Ms. Lavanya holding brief of the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand
Pai is present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. From perusal of
record, it is apparent that, the sole petitioner was died and the application for bringing Legal Heirs on behalf of
petitioners was filed before this court on 23.07.2014. This court has passed an order on this application that, ―the
Legal Heirs of Mr. N. M. Shaikh be brought on record but this order has not been complied with by Legal Heirs of the
deceased till today and they are not coming continuously to the court since 31.01.2025.‖ They were also absent on
28.05.2025, 13.05.2025 and 03.12.2025. Today also they are not responding and attending the court. Although,
Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively, but no other evidence has been
filed by the petitioner to prove the contents of the Statement of Claim. The petitioners are not coming to the court
since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/workman is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of
the petitioner/ workman is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of BPCL Marketing Division, Mumbai, in terminating the
services of Sh. Nasiruddin Pyaru Shaikh is justified. Shr. Nasiruddin Pyaru Shaikh is not
entitled to any relief.
Date: 12-03-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6663
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1340.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससय जबड़ला सन लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सुश्री लता हररचंर सनृ के बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 32/2015) को
जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को
प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल-17012/6/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ms. Lata Harichandra Sanap which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-17012/6/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/32 of 2015
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No. 1. M/s. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
The Director M/s. Birla Sun Life
Insurance Co. Ltd
1India Bull Centre Tower No.1,
15th & 16th Floor,
Jupiter Mill Compound,
814, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Elphinstone Road,
Mumbai – 400 013,
State: Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN.
Party No.2 (Ms. Lata H. Sanap)
Ms. Lata Harichandra Sanap,
R. No.7, Shree Hari Building,
Behind N. R. Nagar,
Patil Plaza-2,
Diva (West),
Thane – 400 612,
6664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State: Maharashtra.
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
Mr. P. A. Deogaonkar.
Advocate.
Workmen
:
No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 12-03-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-17012/6/2015 (IR(M)) dated 03.06.2015. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
1. “Whether the termination of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap, from the services of M/s. Birla
Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai has followed without following due process of Law?
2. Whether the termination order issued in respect of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap is illegal and
malafide?
3. If so, to what relief the Applicant entitled to?”
2.
The case is called out today. The Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. P. A. Deogaonkar is present before
the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/workman on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is
apparent that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 21.04.2020 long back. No Although,
Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively but no other evidence has been
filed by the petitioner to prove the contents of the Statement of Claim. The petitioner/workman is not coming to the
court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/workman is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The
claim of the petitioner/ workman is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
1. The termination of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap, from the services of M/s. Birla Sun
Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai has followed by following due process of Law.
2. The termination order issued in respect of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap is not illegal
and not malafide.
3. The Applicant is not entitled to any relief.
Date: 12-03-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1341.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससय टाटा स्ट्टील जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमयचारी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 66/2009) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-20012/74/2009-आईआर(सीएम-I)]
सलोनी, उप
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6665
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 66/2009) 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 M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-20012/74/2009-IR(CM-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. 66/2009
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.,
Jamadoba, Dhanbad
AND
Their Workmen
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :-Sri D.K Verma, Ld. Advocate
For the workmen :-Sri D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 06/04/2026
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-20012/74/2009-IR(CM-I) dated 04/12/2009 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Jamadoba, Dhanbad and their workman through the Member,
Rashtriya Colliery MazdoorSangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―i) Whether the action of the Management of Tata Steel Limited, in not providing dependant
employment to Sri Purushotam Kumar, son of Late Kapildeo Mandal, Belt Operator is justified and legal?‖ ii)
To what relief is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal entitled?‖
2.
The case of the workman as per the written statement filed on his behalf is that Late Kapildeo Mandal having
P.No. 216655 was employed as Belt Operator in No. 6 and 7 Pits of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and he
was continuously employed putting in unblemished record of service from 26.07.1984 to 30.03.2006 and after 22
years of this service after doing his shift duty on 30.03.2006 from 5:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. he deposited his Cap Lamp
in Lamp Cabin and while he was leaving from his place of work, he was killed on the way in the premises of the Tata
Steel Ltd. at distance of about 100 Meters to the work place but after his death his dependent son was not given
employment in lieu of his father Late Kapildeo Mandal disregarding innumerable requests of his family members and
of the union and therefore Industrial Dispute was raised which ended in failure in conciliation resulting the reference
of his case before this Tribunal. As the accident of killing took place in the premises of the company so his dependent
was entitled for employment in all bonafides but it was denied to him by the company although in such nature of case
6666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the company has given dependent employment in several cases which is discriminatory, improper, unfair and illegal
and at last it was prayed to direct the company for providing dependent employment of the deceased employee.
3.
On the other hand the case of the management as per the written statement filed on his behalf is that the
present reference is not maintainable. The employees of Jharia Division of Tata Steel Ltd. are guided by the bipartite
agreement with the union in respect of dependent employment. As per the employment procedure of the company
employment will be offered to the male dependent of an employee who meets with fatal accident or suffers permanent
total disability (100%) due to an accident while on duty. In the absence of an adult male dependent, employment may
be offered to the widow and the widow so employed may, if she so wishes, resign from services in favour of
employment of her son on his attaining majority. The benefit under employees family benefit scheme may be
extended to the family in lieu of employment if so opted. This will be in addition to the accident compensation
payable in such cases. According to the employment procedure of the company in vogue the son of Late Kapildeo
Mandal is not entitled for employment in the Steel Company. The deceased employee was appointed on 26.07.1984
and expired on 31.03.2006. He was an underground employee at 6&7 Pits Colliery. The underground employee is
required to get his attendance booked in ‗C‘ form register in the attendance cabin at the beginning of the shift and get
himself ‗OUT‘ before leaving the colliery premises at the end of the shift. An underground employee is also required
to take the cap lamp from the lamp cabin situated at the pit top before going underground and deposit the same at the
lamp cabin at the end of the shift before leaving the colliery premises. On 30.03.2006, the deceased employee was in
‗B‘ shift duty commencing from 5:00 P.M. on 30.03.2006 to 1:00 A.M. of 31.03.2006 at 6&7 Pits Colliery and was
deployed to work as Belt Operator in the colliery. Accordingly he got his attendance booked in Form ‗C‘ Register at
the attendance cabin in the beginning of the shift and also got him ‗OUT‘ at the end of the shift. He had deposited his
cap lamp in the cap lamp cabin of 6&7 Pits Colliery at the end of the shift before leaving the colliery premises. He
had neither met with any accident nor received any injury while on duty in ‗B‘ Shift i.e. from 5:00 PM on 30.03.2006
to 1:00 A.M. on 31.03.2006. Usha Devi wife of Late Kapildeo Mandal filed a case under Workmen‘s Compensation
Act for payment of compensation before the Workmen‘s Compensation Commissioner, Dhanbad who referred the
same to the P.O Labour Court, Dhanbad for adjudication that was registered as WC Case No. 1/2009 and after hearing
the parties the Ld. Court held that the deceased employee has not received any injury in course of employment and so
the applicant is not entitled for compensation and in view of this matter the son of deceased employee was not entitled
for employment as per provision of employment procedure of the company. In rejoinder portion the management has
also taken the same stand and denied the entitlement of the applicant and at last it was prayed to hold that the son of
Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for any relief in this case.
4.
The workman has also submitted his rejoinder to the W/S filed on behalf of the management submitting that
the dependent employment is an automatic condition and if an employee dies during the service tenure as per NCWA
his dependent is entitled to the service. The workman has denied all the stands taken by the management in its written
statement.
5.
Issue
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties following issue has been framed:
―i) Whether the action of the Management of Tata Steel Limited, in not providing dependant employment to
Sri Purushotam Kumar, son of Late Kapildeo Mandal, Belt Operator is justified and legal? And if not, to what relief
is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal entitled?‖
6.
To prove his case the applicant Purushotam Kumar has examined himself as WW-1.
7.
No documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the workman.
8.
On the other hand the management has examined MW-1 Sapan Kumar Patra.
9.
Following documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the management:
Exhibit M-1 – Copy of Order dated 01.10.2010 passed in W.C. Case No. 01/2009 by the P.O. Labour Court,
Dhanbad
Exhibit M-2 – Copy of Procedure for employment of employee-wards at Jharia Group of Collieries
Exhibit M-3 – Copy of NCWA-IV Chapter-IX
Exhibit M-4 – Copy of Deposition of Purushotam Kumar in W.C. Case No. 01/2009
Exhibit M-5 – Copy of Deposition of Usha Devi in W.C. Case No. 01/2009
Exhibit M-6 - Copy of Deposition of Mohan Turi in W.C. Case No. 01/2009
Exhibit M-7 - Copy of Deposition of Govind Prasad in W.C. Case No. 01/2009
Exhibit M-8 - Copy of Deposition of Raghvendra Kumar Nirala in W.C. Case No. 01/2009
Exhibit M-9 - Copy of Deposition of Sapan Kumar Patro in W.C. Case No. 01/2009
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6667
10.
Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
11.
The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the workman has submitted that Late Kapildeo Mandal was permanent
employee of Tata Steel Ltd. and he commenced his duty from 5 P.M. on 30.03.2006 to 1 A.M. on 31.03.2006 and
after completing his duty he was returning to his home but unfortunately he was killed at a distance of about 100
meters from his work place. He had rendered continuous service of 22 years since 26.07.1984 to 31.03.2006. He died
during tenure of his service so his dependent son Purushotam Kumar is entitled to employment in his place as per
NCWA but his claim was rejected by the management on the ground that the provision of NCWA are not applicable
in his case. He had filed W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was rejected by the P.O. Labour Court, Dhanbad holding that he
was not killed in course of employment and against that order he has preferred M.A. No. 293 of 2010 before the
Hon‘ble Jharkhand High Court. His claim is not based only on the ground of death of his father during course of
employment but also as per the provision of NCWA and in similar situation the management had provided
employment to the dependent of one Late Geeta Devi.
12.
On the other hand the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the management has submitted that as per the employment
procedure of the company the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for employment in the Steel Company
because as per the employment procedure the dependent of an employee is entitled for employment in case an
employee meets with fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability due to an accident while on duty but the same
is not applicable in case of the present reference. The applicant had also filed W.C. Case No. 1/2009 but the same was
rejected by the Labour Court, Dhanbad and this reference case has no merit and so prayed to dismiss the same.
13.
Now as regards the oral evidence adduced in this case from the side of the applicant, WW-1 Purushotam
Kumar who is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal has deposed that Late Kalidas Mandal was permanent employee of
Tata Steel Ltd. and on 30.03.2006 and he commenced his duty from 5 P.M. on 30.03.2006 to 1 A.M. on 31.03.2006
and after completing his duty he was returning to his home but unfortunately he was killed at a distance of about 100
meters from his work place. He had rendered continuous service of 22 years since 26.07.1984 to 31.03.2006. He died
during tenure of his service and so his dependent son Purushotam Kumar is entitled to employment in his place as per
NCWA but his claim was rejected by the management on the ground that the provision of NCWA are not applicable
in his case. He filed W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was rejected by the P.O. Labour Court, Dhanbad holding that he was
not killed in course of employment and against that order he has preferred M.A. No. 293 of 2010 before the Hon‘ble
Jharkhand High Court. His claim is not based only on the ground of death of his father during course of employment
but also as per the provision of NCWA. In cross-examination he has stated that he filed application for employment in
place of his father who died due to accident during the tenure of service and he had also filed the case before the
Workmens‘ Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation being W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was transferred
to Labour Court, Dhanbad where it was held that as his father had not died due to accident in course of employment,
he was not entitled to get compensation. He has denied the fact that his father had not died during course of
employment. He has further stated that he has no knowledge if there is any procedure in Tata Company regarding
dependent employment or any provision of NCWA and denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to dependent
employment.
14.
No documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the applicant in this case.
15.
Now as regards the oral evidence of the management, MW-1 Sapan Kumar Patra who is working as clerk at
General Manager‘s Office Jamadoba of Tata Steel Ltd. has deposed that as per the employment procedure of the
company, the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for employment in the Steel Company because as per the
employment procedure the dependent of an employee is entitled for employment in case an employee meets with a
fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability due to an accident while on duty but the same is not applicable in
case of the present reference. The applicant had also filed W.C. Case No. 1/2009 but the same was rejected by the
Labour Court, Dhanbad and this reference case has no merit. In cross-examination he has stated that the workman
died during his service. He cannot say if the dependent gets employment in coal industries after the death of his parent
employee. He also cannot say if NCWA is applicable in Tata Company.
16.
Now as regards the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the management, Exhibit M-1 is the
copy of order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the P.O, Labour Court, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was filed
by one Usha Devi, wife of Late Kapildeo Mandal against the Manager of TISCO Colliery claiming compensation of
Rs. 3,68,340/- for death of her husband in TISCO Colliery but her case was dismissed by the Labour Court holding
that the deceased workman was not murdered in course of employment. Exhibit M-4 to M-9 are the certified copies
of deposition of the witnesses namely Purushotam Kumar, Usha Devi, Mohan Turi, Govind Prasad, Raghvendra
Kumar Nirala and Sapan Kumar Patro respectively in W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that ultimately resulted in dismissal.
Exhibit M-2 is copy of procedure for employment of employee-wards at Jharia Group of Collieries dated 27.11.1997
in which it has been stated that an employee on completion of 15 years of satisfactory service may register one of
his/her dependents in the approved category (son, brother, adopted son, son-in-law and grandson) for employment on
his service and employment will be offered, unless otherwise stated, to the registered dependent of an employee who
ceases to be in employment after completing 30 years or more service, subject to the availability of vacancy in the
standard force and requirement. Such employment to the registered dependents may be offered along with those in
6668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
temporary pool subject to priorities agreed with the union. Employment will be offered to the male dependent of an
employee who meets with a fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability (100%) due to an accident while on
duty. In the absence of an adult male dependent, employment may be offered to the widow and the benefit under
Employees‘ Family Benefit Scheme may be extended to the family in lieu of employment if so opted and this will be
in addition to the accident compensation payable in such cases. Exhibit M-3 is the copy of Chapter-IX of NCWA-IV
which deals with the Social Security such as Life Cover Scheme, Workmen‘s Compensation Benefits as well as
Employment to the dependent out of which Rule 9.4.1 is relevant for this case which says that Employment would be
provided to one dependent of workers disabled permanently and those who meet with death while in service.
17.
On perusal of Exhibit M-2 it is evident that the case of the applicant does not fall under any of the categories
mentioned therein but as regards Exhibit M-3 which is copy of Chapter-IX of NCWA-IV and got exhibited on behalf
of the management in his favour, on careful perusal of Rule 9.4.1 it is clear that there are 2 categories who have been
given entitlement to the dependent employment out of which No. 1 is dependent of workers disabled permanently and
No.2 is those who meet with death while in service and the case of the present applicant falls in the second category
as the deceased Kapildeo Mandal died/killed while in service and therefore the present applicant namely Purushotam
Kumar who is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal who was permanent Belt Operator in Jharia division of M/s. Tata
Steel Limited, is entitled to the dependent employment in place of his father who died on 31.03.2006.
18.
MW-1, Sapan Kumar Patra though has deposed in Paragraph-5 of his examination-in-chief that the
employment provision of NCWA is not applicable in Tata Steel Limited but in his cross-examination he has stated
that he cannot say whether NCWA is applicable to Tata Company or not and therefore the evidence of this witness on
this point does not support the case of management in any way.
Though in the note of 9.4.1 it has been mentioned that in regard to the employment of dependent of
employees, TISCO will follow their existing practices but it has nowhere categorically been mentioned in it that the
Rules of the NCWA will not be applicable in case of employment to the dependent of the TISCO employees.
19.
Thus on the basis of above appreciations of the facts, circumstances and evidences on record this Tribunal
finds and holds that the action of the management of Tata Steel Limited in not providing dependent employment to
Sri Purushotam Kumar son of Late Kapildeo Mandal, Belt Operator is neither justified nor legal and accordingly he is
entitled to the dependent employment in place of his father. The issue is decided in favour of the applicant and the
Management is directed to provide employment to the applicant Purushotam Kumar within a period of 3 months from
the date of publication of this Award. The reference is answered accordingly.
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 ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1342.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जी.एस. इन्नजया सेल्वराज के बीच अनुबंध
में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 50/2023) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-72]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 50/2023) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri G.S. Innnaiah Selvaraj which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-72]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6669
CHENNAI
ID No. 50/2023
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 15-04-2026
Sh. G.S. Innnaiah Selvaraj,
No.3/585, Govindamedu,
Kilacher PO, Thiruvallur Dist.
PIN – 631 402
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Senior Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Salem Division,
Post Box No.776, Johnsonpot,
Salem – 636 007
:
2nd Party /First Respondent
2. The Executive Director,
LIC of India, Marketing / PPD,
Central Office, Marketing Department,
3rd Floor, West Wing, Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai – 400 021
:
2nd Party / Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: Party in person
For the Respondent No. 1 & 2
: Representative of the Respondent
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order
No. M/.7/25/2021-B2/Adj/A1 dated 15.05.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the demand of Shri G.S. Innaiah Selvaraj, Ex-LIC Development Officer for re-
instatement or re-appointment with back wages into the service of LIC is justified? If not, to
what relief he is entitled to?
2. ID called out. Heard of maintainability. Having gone through the record and after hearing the
petitioner in person and representative of the Respondent / Management,the question that arises
to consider at this stage is whether the petitioner / claimant comes under the category of
workman.
3. The clear case law on the subject is Chauharya Tripathi & Ors Vs LIC of India &Ors wherein
the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that the Development Officers working in LIC are not
workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
6670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the claimant is not a
workman, and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the lis.
5. ID is dismissed in for want of jurisdiction and the reference is answered accordingly.
6. The Petitioner / Claimant may file a petition before the competent authority, if so advised.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1343.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री वी. ृुगाजेंजथरन के बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 51/2023) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-73]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 51/2023) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri V. Pugazhenthiran which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-73]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 51/2023
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 15-04-2026
Shir V. Pugazhenthiran,
No.76/34 GKM Colony, 32nd Street,
Chennai – 600 082
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Executive Director,
LIC of India, Marketing / PPD,
Central Office, Marketing Department,
3rd Floor, West Wing, Jeevan Bima Marg,Mumbai – 400 021
: 2nd Party / Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6671
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: Party in person
For the Respondent
: Representative of the Respondent
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order
No. M/.7(10)/2022-B4 dated 15.05.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the demand of Shri V. Pugazhenthiran, Ex-LIC Development Officer for re-
instatement or re-appointment with back wages into the service is justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled to?
2. ID called out. Heard of maintainability. Having gone through the record and after hearing the
petitioner in person and representative of the Respondent / Management,the question that arises
to consider at this stage is whether the petitioner / claimant comes under the category of
workman.
3. The clear case law on the subject is Chauharya Tripathi & Ors Vs LIC of India &Ors wherein
the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that the Development Officers working in LIC are not
workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the claimant is not a
workman, and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the lis.
5. ID is dismissed in for want of jurisdiction and the reference is answered accordingly.
6. The Petitioner / Claimant may file a petition before the competent authority, if so advised.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1344.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार सेल
के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मजग्नेसाइट ृट्टाली थोजझलालर संगम के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 31/2023) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया
हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26011/04/2023-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
6672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to SAIL and Magnesite Pattali Thozhilalar Sangam which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26011/04/2023-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 31/2023
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-04-2026
The General Secretary,
Salem District Magnesite Pattali Thozhilalar
Sangam,
Mamangam, Keel Board,
Via, SRCL,
Salem – 636 302.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chief Operating Officer,
SAIL, Refractory Coy Ltd.,
Suramangalam Post,
Salem – 636 005
:
2nd Party / Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent
:
M/s S. Karthikesan, Adv
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order
No. L-26011/04/2023(IR(M), dated 28.03.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether demand of Salem District Magnesite Pattali Thozhil Sangam Union vide letter dated
14.12.2019 to the management of SAIL Refractory Company Ltd. (SRCL), Salem for
compassionate appointment to the legal dependent of employees, who died in harness while in
service based on the settlement dated 17.08.1987 with petitioner and Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
(BSCL) is proper, legal and justified?
If yes, whether the settlement dated 17.08.2017 as mentioned above is binding on the present
management of SRCL? If yes, to what relief the disputant union is entitled and what directions,
if any, are necessary in the matter?‖
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6673
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 28.03.2023 from the appropriate Government, the
dispute was registered as ID No. 31/2023 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their
appearance fixing the case to 17.07.2023. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized
Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to 28.08.2023, 17.06.2025, 11.08.2025,
09.10.2025, 01.12.2025 and 27.01.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up. It reveals from the body
of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 28.03.2023 to this Tribunal
for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties.
It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in
the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement
fixing the case to 06.04.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up nor was any authorized
representative of the counsel on his behalf present. The claim statement was not furnished in
any manner by the Petitioner. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose
not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other
date which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for
Final Order.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest
to proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as
referred by the Appropriate Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as
per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1345.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री वी. ृचामुथु के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 78/2017) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-74]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 78/2017) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri V. Pachamuthu which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-74]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
6674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Date: 02-04-2026
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 78/2017
BETWEEN
Shri V.Pachamuthu,
# 200B, Savadi Street,
R.P. Pudur Post,
Namakkal District - 637 001.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. by its Sr. Divisional Manager,
Salem Division, Salem-636 007.
2. Manager (P&IR)
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office, Salem Division,
Salem-636 007.
:
2n Party/Respondents
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
:
M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ Respondents
:
M/s. C.K.Chandrasekar, Advocates
The Petitioner has filed this claim petition u/s.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly seeking the
following relief:-
To pass an Award holding that order of termination issued by the Respondent/Management dated 13.05.2017
terminating the services of the Petitioner from 15.05.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and liable to be set
aside and consequently, direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity
of service and other attendant benefits with costs.
2. As per the claim statement, the Petitioner is an ex-service man served in Indian Army for 18 years. The
Employment Exchange sponsored his name to the Respondent for the post of Assistant. The petitioner was selected
and appointed by an order dated 05.07.1997 by the respondent Corporation on consolidated wages of Rs.3127.80 for
the period from 09.07.1997 to 06.09.1997. The Petitioner though termed to be temporary Assistant, but he had been
discharging the work of permanent Assistant. The Petitioner was expecting absorption and regularisation of
service, but the 2nd Respondent by an order dated 13.05.2017 has terminated the services of the Petitioner w.e.f
15.05.2017. No reason has been assigned as to why services of the Petitioner has been terminated. While the
Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12 calendar months prior to termination.
The Petitioner has rendered the service for about twenty years, the Respondent after paying meager wages
has failed to absorb the services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has relied on the case law in LIC Employees
Association Vs LIC of India (2015) 2 LLN 1. Hence, the present dispute is raised before this Tribunal.
3. The Respondent in its reply statement stated that the Petitioner‘s service was temporary. He was disengaged
upon attaining 60 years of age, since there was no scope for employment. The Respondent submits that judgement
reported in LIC Employees Association Vs LIC of India is not applicable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was
appointed under regulation 8 of the LIC . He worked without demur. He chose to take examination but was
unsuccessful . Hence, the claim of the Petitioner is untenable. He was provided with an opportunity for regular
absorption by allowing him to take written examination for selection of Assistant on 31.08.2008. But, the Petitioner
was unable to utilize that opportunity as he did not come out successful in the written examination.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6675
4.
It is also stated that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations were made by the Corporation in the year 1960 and in
the year 1981, the LIC Act was amended with the following provisions:-
“1. Abrogated the power of the Corporation to determine the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the
Corporation, by deleting clause (bb) and part of Clause (b) of S.49(1);
2. The Central Govt. was empowered to determine, through rules issued under clause (cc) of section 48(1) the terms
and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation.;
3. The (Staff) Regulations and other provisions relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the
Corporation shall be deemed to be rules made by the Central Govt. under Sec 48(2)(cc) (vide the newly inserted sub-
sec (2A) of Section 48 and ;
4. The provisions of, among others, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 or any other law or any agreement, settlement or
award shall have no application in relation to matters in respect of which the central govt. has made rules (vide the
newly inserted sub-sec. 2C of section 48).”
5. The Respondent relied upon the following judgements:-
i)
A.V.Nachane Vs Union of India (AIR 1982 SC PP 1126/1137)
ii)
Mr. M.Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager LIC, Machilipatnam (AIR 1994 PP 1343-1349).
Witnesses Examined:
For the First Party Petitioner :
WW1 Mr.V.Pachamuthu
For the 2nd Party/Management :
MW1 Mr. K.S., Elangovan,
Manager (P&IR)
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner‘s side:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
05.07.1997
Copy of appointment of the Petitioner
Ex.W2
17.04.2008
Copy of transfer order
Ex.W3
13.05.2017
Copy of order of termination
Ex.W4
-
Statement of bank account of the Petitioner reflecting monthly salary.
Ex.W5
Ex.serviceman ID Card
Documents Marked:
On behalf of Respondent/Management
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M 1
13.05.2017
Letter of Salem Div.Office regarding cessation of service of the Petitioner
Ex.M 2
-
List of candidates for whom hall tickets were sent
Ex.M3
-
LIC of India (Employment of Temporary staff ) Instructions, 1993 - Extract
Ex.M4
-
LIC of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960-Extract.
6.
The Petitioner has submitted proof of affidavit in support of his claim and adduced oral evidence as WW1
and documents filed by him were marked as Ex.W1 to W5. The Respondent has also filed its proof of affidavit and
6676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri K.S.Elangovan, Manager was examined as MW1 and documents on behalf of Respondent were marked as
Ex.M1 to Ex.M4.
7. The first point that arises for determination is whether the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Mr. A.V.Nachane Vs Union of India (AIR 1982 SC PP 1126) and Mr. M.Venugopal vs. Divisional
Manager LIC, Machilipatnam (AIR 1994 SC PP 1343) is applicable to the present case on hand and consequently,
the Petitioner is debarred to raise an industrial dispute?
8.
On perusal of the above mentioned judgements, it appears that judgements do not lay down blanket rule that
Petitioner is always debarred from raising an Industrial dispute after these two judgements. These two judgements
recognizes limited solution of right to raise an Industrial Dispute in specific circumstances. In the case of Mr.
A.V.Nachane Vs Union of India (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the amendments of LIC of India Act
which allowed service conditions to be governed by statutory rules overriding the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Those rules which were approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court operates notwithstanding the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, if the matter is governed by overriding statutory rules, then usually, the industrial dispute
is barred. But, if the matter is not governed by such rules, then , the industrial dispute is allowable.
9.
Now, I have to examine whether the case of the Petitioner is governed under the amended Rules?. For
this, I have to ascertain the exact subject of the dispute. The Rules mentioned above in para No.4 do not have
overriding effect of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which runs as under:-
“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 service] (w.e.f. 19.12.1964).] 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.”
10.
Thus, section 25F of the Act deals with conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and mandated
that employer cannot retrench the workman, unless follow/comply with the mandatory steps provided under
section 25F, which are as under:-
i)
One month notice (or wages in lieu thereof);
ii)
Retrenchment compensation i.e, equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part
thereof in excess of six months and this amount must be paid at the time of retrenchment.
11. Admittedly, the mandate provided under the section 25F was not followed by the Respondent/Management.
Hence, the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner is maintainable.
12.
The second point that arises for determination is whether the Petitioner has worked as workman for more
than 240 days continuously in a year?
13.
The answer to the question emerges from the documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner. Ex.W1 is copy
of appointment order issued by Respondent/Management to the Petitioner dated 05.07.1997. Ex.W2 suggests that
Petitioner was transferred on 07.04.2008. Ex.W4 is the copy of statement of bank account of the Petitioner reflecting
monthly salary credited into his account. On perusal of the record, it appears that Petitioner was paid monthly salary
regularly for several years and his service was terminated by letter dated 13.05.2017. From the date of entry into
service, the Petitioner has received salary upto 15.05.2017 continuously without any interruption. Hence, this fact
is established that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year.
14.
The third point that arises for determination is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?
15.
As per discussion above, the Respondent/Management LIC Corporation had failed to comply with the
mandatory provisions u/s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. i.e., No notice was issued to the Petitioner; no
wages was paid in lieu of notice as well as compensation equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year
of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Thus, the retrenchment becomes illegal, void and ab initio.
It is worth to mention that provisions of section 25F of the Act are mandatory and not only procedural and its
violation converts into result of reinstatement. But, in the present case on hand, the Petitioner has already attained
the age of superannuation and therefore, there is no occasion to pass an order of reinstatement. Therefore, instead of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6677
reinstatement, it is appropriate to pass an order to pay one month wages in lieu of notice; compensation i.e, equal to
15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
AWARD
In view of the foregoing discussion, the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be allowed with
the following directions to the Respondent/Management :-
i)
To pay the Petitioner one month wages in lieu of notice;
ii)
Retrenchment compensation i.e, equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part
thereof in excess of six months.
iii)
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as lumpsum compensation for illegal retrenchment.
All these above mentioned amounts shall be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management within a period
of two months after publication of Award and if the Respondent fails to pay these amounts within the prescribed
period, then interest @ 6% per annum will be payable from the date of retrenchment of the workman from service
till the date of actual payment. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
Record be consigned to the record room.
Place : Chennai
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
Date : 02.04.2026
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1346.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससय इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री प्रीतम ससह के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 125/2024) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-75]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 125/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Shri Pritam Singh which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-75]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh
(Present:-Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding-cum-Link Officer).
ID No.125/2024
Registered on:-01.06.2021
Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Khjan Singh R/o House No.29, AmanVihar Ambala Distt. Ambala 133021.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G T Road, Ambala Cantt (Principal Employer).
2nd address
6678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Regd Office G-9, Ali Yavarjang Marg, Bandra East,
Mumbai-400051
2. M/s Yudhvir Singh Jamwal Security Agency, F-103, PalamVyapar Kendra, Pala Vihar, Gurgoan
(Haryana)
3. M/s BSS Security Agency C/o M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited G.T. Road, Ambala Cantt.
Distt. Ambala (HR) 133001
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Tarun Malhotra, AR for workman.
Sh. SC Gupta & Ms. Himani Sharma along withSh. Ashish
Kapoor, AR for Respondent No.1.
Sh. Anish Babbar, AR for Respondent No.2
Sh. Parveen Kumar, AR for Respondent No.3
AWARD :16.04.2026
1. The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman under Section 2(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act) against his termination dated 01.06.2020 with a prayer to
reinstate him in service along with all consequential benefits.
2. Today, AR of workman made a statement that he withdraws his present Industrial Dispute. AR for
respondent No.1, 2 and 3 also made a statement that they have no objection in case the workman withdraws
his present industrial dispute. Their statements are recorded separately.
3. In view of the statement of AR for workman as well as the statements of AR for respondent nos.1, 2
and 3, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly, 'No Claim
Award' is passed in the present industrial dispute.
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-cum-Link Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1347.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससय इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कृ् णृाल के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 126/2024) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[फा. सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-76]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 126/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Shri Krishanpal which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-76]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6679
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh
(Present:-Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding-cum-Link Officer).
ID No.126/2024
Registered on:-01.06.2021
Krishanpal S/o Sh. Jyoti Singh R/o House No.31, Shiva Ji Park, Village Jandli, Ambala City,
Distt. Ambala (HR) 134003.
-------- Workman
Versus
4. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G T Road, Ambala Cantt (Principal Employer).
2nd address
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Regd Office G-9, Ali Yavarjang Marg, Bandra
East, Mumbai-400051
5. M/s Yudhvir Singh Jamwal Security Agency, F-103, PalamVyapar Kendra, Pala Vihar,
Gurgoan (Haryana)
6. M/s BSS Security Agency C/o M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited G.T. Road, Ambala
Cantt. Distt. Ambala (HR) 133001
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Tarun Malhotra, AR for workman.
Sh. SC Gupta & Ms. Himani Sharma along withSh. Ashish
Kapoor, AR for Respondent No.1.
Sh. Anish Babbar, AR for Respondent No.2
Sh. Parveen Kumar, AR for Respondent No.3
AWARD :16.04.2026
5.
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman under Section 2(A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act) against his termination dated
01.06.2020 with a prayer to reinstate him in service along with all consequential benefits.
6.
Today, AR of workman made a statement that he withdraws his present Industrial
Dispute. AR for respondent No.1, 2 and 3 also made a statement that they have no objection in
case the workman withdraws his present industrial dispute. Their statements are recorded
separately.
7.
In view of the statement of AR for workman as well as the statements of AR for
respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'.
Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present industrial dispute.
8.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under
Section 17 of the Act for publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding-cum-Link Officer
6680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1348.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री प्रभु नाथ के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/2012) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-43012/8/2011-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Shri Prabhu Nath which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-43012/8/2011-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 34 of 2012
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Prabhu Nath, S/o Shri Gaya Prasad,
739- Harijan Basti, Harijendar Nagar,
Shiv Katra, Kanpur.
.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
16/98- LIC Building,
M.G. Marg, Kanpur.
……………………..Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 04/05/2012 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-43012/8/2011 (IR(B-M) dt. 04.05.2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., in not giving post and scale of pay
accordance to nature of job and in terminating the services of Shri Prabhu Nath S/o Shri Gaya Prasad w.e.f.
9.6.1997, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Prabhu Nath (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1.
The claimant/worker was appointed to the post of Peon/Messenger in the defendant establishment in the year
1983.
2.
The claimant/worker's work was of a permanent nature, but the employer did not provide him with the salary
or designation commensurate with the nature of his work. When the plaintiff worker demanded a designation
and salary scale in accordance with the nature of his work, the employer became displeased and suddenly
terminated his services on June 9, 1997.
3.
The claimant/worker had been continuously employed from 1983 to June 8, 1997, without an interruption.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6681
4.
The employers did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, while terminating the plaintiff worker's services, as the claimant was neither given notice nor severance
pay, nor any notice pay before the termination of his services.
5.
The respondent employers, being aggrieved by the award of the Hon'ble Labour Court, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,
filed Writ Petition No. 31495/2010, Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, in the Hon'ble
High Court, Allahabad. In its judgment dated February 21, 2011, the Hon'ble High Court held that the
appropriate government in relation to the disputes of Steel Authority of India is the Central Government.
Therefore, the reference issued by the Hon'ble Labour Court and the award passed thereon by the Hon'ble
Labour Court No. 3, Kanpur, were accordingly set aside. beyond its jurisdiction and consequently not
sustainable, and were accordingly set aside.
6.
Based on the above facts, the termination of the claimant worker's service is unjust and illegal. Therefore, the
claimant worker is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages and other
admissible benefits for the entire period of unemployment.
Respondent side has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
1. The reasons / recital on the basis of which the Central Government has formed it's opinion of existence of
Industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order. The said order is inconsistent to
the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Industrial Tribunal II
reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J. Page No. 3891.
2. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it miserably failed to consider
the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary State of Karnataka V/s Uma
Devi and others reported in 2006(109) F.L.R. 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India
and others V/s Vartak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) F.L.R. 500, wherein it has been categorically
held that daily wagers, casual and contract Labours have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
3. Neither the services of applicant have been prop dismissed, retrenched, terminated nor has he been deprived
from work allegedly from 9.6.1997 in any manner whatsoever.
4. No cause of action had accrued to the applicant on (b) establishme 9.6.97 nor on any other date in any
manner whatsoever.
5. The applicant had never been appointed with opposite party establishment in any capacity in any manner
import whatsoever, as such the question of termination of his services does not arise.
6. He had never been appointed with Opposite Party in any capacity at any point of time, neither in the year
1983, as alleged. The Opposite Party is a Government of India company, and no post of peon exists in it, as
alleged. It is pertinent to mention here that recruitment to posts in the company is on the basis of laid down
procedures and statutory rules after holding requisite tests and interviews. The applicant has never undergone
any of the recruitment procedures, thus proving that he was never recruited. Had he been recruited, he would
have been issued appointment letter and his name would have figured in the official records of attendance
maintained by the Opposite Party establishment. He would also have been issued several other important
documents such as identity card, pay slip and leave book by the Opposite Party establishment.
7. It is reiterated that he had Jo Lever been in the employment of Opposite Party, as such the provisions of Sec.
25F Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are neither attracted, nor is he entitled to benefits there under. It is further
denied that other individuals even lower in post than the applicant have been working in the establishment of
Opposite Party, therefore, the provisions of sec 25G of ments of pars 12 which are a matter of the ID Act are
also not attracted.
8. Furthermore, recruitment on regular posts in the company is on the basis of laid down procedure, various
statutory rules including that of reservation for the posts of SC/ST (OBC and PWD may not have been
applicable at the relevant time) and after requisite tests and interviews. Successful candidates are issued
appointment letters for respective posts and given pay scales accordingly, besides their names are enrolled on
the attendance register, the employees of the opposite party are issued identity cards, pay slips, leave book
etc. and their salaries are credited in their respective bank accounts.
9. Irrespective of regular and permanent work there is casual and intermittent work of loading unloading and
staking of iron and steel goods in Warehouses of Opposite Party which is entrusted to the handling
contractors by inviting tenders, and contractors offering lowest bid are allotted the contract of loading
unloading and staking through a written agreement for a specified period. The handling contractors deploy
their own contract labours to full fill the contractual obligations and the Opposite Party pays directly to such
Handling Contractor according to bills raised by him in terms of agreement.
6682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After filing of above written statement, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In rejoinder, the applicant denied the
averments of the written statement.
After that opposite party filed some documents which is read as under:
1. Reference order dated 06.02.1998 of State Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh, referring industrial dispute between
Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Sales Branch), Kanpur and Engineering Udyog Mazdoor Sabha, Kanpur
in respect of Sarva Sri Prabhu Nath and Rajbeer.
2.
Registration and Incorporation Certificate of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
3.
Format of Joining report submitted by employee appointed for the post Assistant.
4.
Format of Appointment letter issued for the post Messenger by SAIL.
5.
Format of joining report submitted by employees appointed by the post of Messenger.
6.
Record of Attendance for the period July 1995 to December 1995 of non executive employees of
Branch Sales Office, SAIL, Mall Road Kanpur.
7.
Order dated 21.02.2011 passed by Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 31495 of 2010 preferred against
Award passed by Labour Court (III) U.P., Kanpur in Adj. Case No. 15/2006.
8.
Plaint of Industrial Dispute raised by Sri Prabhu Nath before Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central)18.3.2011/21.3.2011, registered as I.D. K-7(52)2011/E.1.
9.
Notice issued by RLC( C) in I.D. No. K-7(52)2011/E.1.
10. Objections and reply dated 20.07.2011 submitted on behalf of SAIL in I.D. No. K-7(52)2011/E.1.
11. Rejoinder dated 8.9.2011 of Sri Prabhu Nath submitted in I.D. No. K-7(52)2011/E.1.
During the trial applicant Prabhu Nath died.
By way of order dated 14.09.2022 his wife Pushpa Devi is corporated against him and the case is further fixed for
evidence of the claimant side.
As per claim statement, claimant requested that he was appointed in 1983 as Peon/messenger by O.P. and his nature
of work is permanent but they were never given to him as per nature, pay and name and suddenly his services was
terminated on date 09.06.1997. He had worked from 1983 to 08.06.1997 continuous without any break.
In reply of that opposite party, in our written statement is stated that Applicant has never appointed with opposite
party establishment in any capacity in any manner whatsoever, as such the question of his services does not arise.
Further said, in our additional statement in para 18, respective of regular and permanent work there is casual and
intermittent work of loading and unloading In para 20 stated that applicant Prabhu Nath had been offered in the post
of complete such emergent casual and intermittent unskilled work arises in exigencies from time to time on initially
and mutually agreed amount and when he had been available and paid remuneration through contingent fund
according the bills raised by him for such work.
Now, the question is whether the applicant is appointed in opposite party organisation for above question the evidence
of the parties is important.
The applicant never filled any documentary evidence he had given oral evidence only and examine himself.
In his chief examination, he supported our claim statement. Chief examination stated that I was employed at the
respondent establishment as a peon/messenger since 1983. Another employee, who worked as a cleaner, was also
hired in 1983. We were both terminated from our jobs on June 9, 1997. We were dismissed verbally. Our services
were terminated by Mr. Sanjeev Saurabh, the Branch Manager, through a verbal order. We had worked continuously
from 1983 to June 6, 1997. We received our salaries directly from the company. The company prepared our salary
slips, and we received our wages through them. In cross examination stated no application was submitted for
employment with the department. The department hired us without any formal process. We did not receive any
appointment letter from the department. But I was given a character certificate. We received our salary through salary
vouchers. I don't know if all employees were paid by check by the establishment, but we were paid in cash. All
employees signed the attendance register maintained by the defendant establishment, but a separate register was
maintained for us, which has been submitted to the court. Document number A/1 was given to me by the branch
manager. Initially, I went to the RLC with this matter, where they said it was a state issue. Then I went to the Labour
Court in the state.
In claim statement and rejoinder applicant stated that he had worked from 1983 to 08.06.1997 without any break but
he had never given any documentary evidence that proved he had worked for above period.
As per ID Act section 25 B is read as under:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6683
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed be in continuous service under an employer-
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twel calendar months preceding the
date with reference to whis calculation is to be made. has actually worked under the employe for
not less than-
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workmar employed below ground in a
mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
It is mandatory that worker has worked 240 days as per provision because applicant has not given any documentary
evidence and against that opposite party said that he had offered in pass to complete such emergent casual and some
work not appointed in his oral evidence claimant said as quoted above he never applied for any employment, he kept
as by department, no any appointment letter has been given, his salary was given by way of vouchers, he paid cash.
The applicant had been offered in past to complete such emergent casual and intermittent unskilled works arisen on
exigencies from time to time on initially on mutually agreed amount, as and when he had been available and paid
remunerations through contingent fund according to bills raised by him for such work.
After showing of all evidence, it is clear no appointment letter was given to him, he paid cash but he had not given
any documentary evidence that he had worked as employee in opposite party organisation or he had worked in
preview of section 25 B.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗Nil‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.). Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1349.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राम सेवक के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 33/2015)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
25 .06. 2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/15/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 33/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Ram Sevak which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-26012/15/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
6684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 33 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Ram Sevak S/o Late Vipati,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1.
The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2.
The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3.
Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/15/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in
terminating the services of Sh. Ram Sevak S/o Late Vipati w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Ram Sevak (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1.
The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2.
The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3.
The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party was
also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4.
It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of documents
were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and deprived of his
service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947 and 1948. This
persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5.
It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6.
The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice pay
or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to all
due payments.
7.
It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6685
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1.
It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased,
arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2.
The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about existence
of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen. In the
absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be a
workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3.
The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of
Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous, self-
contradictory and evasive.
4.
The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of industrial
dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby rendering it liable to
be quashed.
5.
The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6.
The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to consider
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Uma
Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and others v/s
Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that daily wagers,
casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7.
The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before this
Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the opposite
parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is liable to be
rejected.
8.
The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9.
The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus emphatically
denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the applicant is thus put to
strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to
31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or
2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29,
Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and
O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance. Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice
that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its response.
10.
The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11.
The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in Section
2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not applicable upon the
Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be
dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
6686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii) The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagements
as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv) No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference order is
illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02 and it
was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02. Therefore the
applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come to an end by
afflux of time.
(vi) The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law and
on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii) The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not admitted.
In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for 2 yrs w.e.f. 01
Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the new contract was not
finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01 Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is
further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on
30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03
contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the
reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(viii) The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not admitted.
The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came to an automatic
end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written
statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No. 1
employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their control
and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant and are
responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after examining all the
facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is proper and legal. The
judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference order has been sent to the
Hon‘ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal submissions in
the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable. Opposite party No. 1 and 2
are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant were utilized by opposite party
No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers
and are responsible.
(iii) The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary to
the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2 under
their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the
principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No. 1 and 2.
(iv) The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless, unfounded,
and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is of a continuous
nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely responsible for the
applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in paragraphs 11 through 14
of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6687
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has been
filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the respondent,
and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii) The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv) No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3 for
reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the dispute,
it is therefore unreliable.
(vi) The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and baseless
and cannot be accepted.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November, December
2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding pressure to
accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding delayed
payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding deposit of
funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,
1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises 736,
Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii) Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv) Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation
& Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi) Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
6688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Sevak S/o Late Vipati w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just,
fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and
attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be in
continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6689
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months,
he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1350.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री दुली चंद के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/2015)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/14/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Duli Chand which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-26012/14/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 34 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Duli Chand S/o Late Parmu Lal,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
6690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/14/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Duli Chand S/o Late Parmu Lal w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Duli Chand (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party
was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased,
arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6691
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in
Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction
and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference
order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02
and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02.
Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come
to an end by afflux of time.
6692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law
and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for
2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the
new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01
Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended
period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in
favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In
view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be
rejected.
(viii)
The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came
to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written
statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No.
1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their
control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant
and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after
examining all the facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is
proper and legal. The judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference
order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the
Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant
were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1
and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary
to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2
under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are
the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No.
1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is
of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely
responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in
paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant.
In rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has
been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3
for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6693
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the
dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and
baseless and cannot be accepted.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii)
Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv)
Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi)
Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Duli Chand S/o Late Parmu Lal w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is
just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
6694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and
attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6695
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1351.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री लाल बहादुर के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 35/2015)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/13/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Lal Badhadur which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26012/13/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 35 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Lal Badhadur S/o Late Pardeshi,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
6696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/13/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Late Pardeshi w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Lal Bahadur (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party
was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a UP workman of
the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law,
biased, arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6697
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined
in Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without
jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947.
Therefore the reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as
such is liable to be rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It
is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor
nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the
reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and
02 and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and
02. Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract
has come to an end by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the
law and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract
for 2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013.
Since the new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month
more from 01 Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on
6698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after
30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference order is illegal
and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(viii)
The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work
came to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the
written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant.
Opposite party No. 1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was
made to work under their control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the
principal employers of the applicant and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi, after examining all the facts, statements, and records of the
parties, has issued a reference order, which is proper and legal. The judgments cited by the
defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court
for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of
applicant were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore,
opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and
contrary to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party
No. 1 and 2 under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite
party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute
rests with opposite party No. 1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the
applicant is of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1
and 2 are solely responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the
statements made in paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the
Act, the application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the
application has been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal
should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party
no. 3 for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because
the respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of
the dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and
baseless and cannot be accepted.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6699
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii) Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv) Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation
& Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi) Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Late Pardeshi w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is
just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
6700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and
attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6701
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1352.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रमा कांत के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 36/2015)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/12/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Rama Kant which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26012/12/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 36 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Rama Kant S/o Shri Gyari,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
6702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/12/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Rama Kant S/o Gyari w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Rama Kant (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party
was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased,
arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6703
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined
in Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without
jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947.
Therefore the reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as
such is liable to be rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It
is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor
nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the
reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and
02 and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and
02. Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract
has come to an end by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the
law and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract
for 2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013.
Since the new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month
more from 01 Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on
6704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after
30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference order is illegal
and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(viii)
The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work
came to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the
written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant.
Opposite party No. 1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was
made to work under their control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the
principal employers of the applicant and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi, after examining all the facts, statements, and records of the
parties, has issued a reference order, which is proper and legal. The judgments cited by the
defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court
for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of
applicant were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore,
opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and
contrary to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party
No. 1 and 2 under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite
party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute
rests with opposite party No. 1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the
applicant is of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1
and 2 are solely responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the
statements made in paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has been
filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3 for
reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the
dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and baseless
and cannot be accepted.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6705
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1. Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii) Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv) Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation
& Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi) Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Rama Kant S/o Gyari w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
6706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and
attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.)Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6707
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1353.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जिव रतन के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 37/2015)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/11/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 37/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Shiv Ratan which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26012/11/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 37 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Shiv Ratan S/o Shri Tulsi Ram,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/11/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Shiv Ratan S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Shiv Ratan (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party
was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
6708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased,
arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6709
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in
Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction
and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference
order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02
and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02.
Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come
to an end by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law
and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for
2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the
new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01
Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended
period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in
favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In
view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be
rejected.
(viii)
The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came
to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written
statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No.
1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their
control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant
and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after
examining all the facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is
proper and legal. The judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference
order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the
Hon‘ble Court.
6710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant
were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1
and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary
to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2
under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are
the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No.
1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is
of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely
responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in
paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has
been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3
for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the
dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and
baseless and cannot be accepted.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6711
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii)
Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv)
Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi)
Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki,
Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Shiv Ratan S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is
just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
6712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and
attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1354.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार सहदुस्ट्तान ृे
रोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससय प्रताृ ससह जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सुश्री रीता देवी के बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 41/2022) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड -16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-77]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 41/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited; M/s Pratap Singh Security Agency and Ms. Rita Devi which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-77]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6713
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
ID Case No. 41 of 2022
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)
.
Between:-
Ms. Rita Devi D/o Shri Raja Ram, Village Mainthana, Post Satiha, Distt. Kanpur Dehat-209121(U.P)
……………Workman
AND
1. The Deputy General Manager, Rewari Kanpur Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Pipeline Department 8th Floor, North Tower Scope Minar, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
2. The Chief Installation Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kanpur Terminal, Rajpur Gajner
Road, Village Rasoolpur Gogomau, Tehsil-Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat-209121.
3. M/s Pratap Singh Security Agency, Shop No. 176, 1st Floor, Harsh City Mall, Shakti Khand-2, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad-201014
…………………Management
AWARD
06.02.2026
Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. K-10/2-4/2022-IR dated 12.05.2022 has
referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner(Central) in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) on the Central Government and Delegated to the undersigned in pursuance
of the Notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O 1262 (E) and 1263(E) both dated 17.03.2023 the
Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-
―Whether the demand of Smt. Rita Devi for reinstatement of her services with M/s Pratap Singh
Security Agency, a contractor engaged by the management of HPCL, Kanpur Terminal, Rasoolpur,
Gogomau is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?‖
After receiving the reference the Tribunal issued notice on 13.05.2022 and fixed date for filling claim statement for
21.06.2022. On Perusal of the record it is found out the worker failed to file claim statement on fixed date. After that
the workman was given several opportunities for filing claim statement by fixing dates such as 29.07.2022,
30.09.2022, 30.11.2022, 24.01.2023, 11.04.2023, 16.06.2023, 08.09.2023, 02.11.2023, 11.12.2023, 15.02.24,
23.04.2024, 10.07.2024,10.10.2024. On 13.12.2024 it had been noticed by my predecessor that despite case being
fixed on 12.05.2022 for filing claim statement no claim statement was filed and accordingly one most opportunity
was granted to file claim statement. Later more opportunities like 12.02.2025, 07.05.2025, 06.08.2025, 06.11.2025,
06.02.2026 were further provided for filing claim statement. Even after all these opportunities the workman failed to
file claim statement. A second notice was issued on 01.04.2025 for appearing on 06.02.2026 as last opportunity but
again workman failed to register his presence before the Tribunal.
On behalf of management HPCL, a preliminary objection has been filed on 30.11.2022 and respectfully submitted
that:-
The present claim application is legally not maintainable on the ground that the claimant was never issued any
appointment letter nor paid wages by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at any point of time. Thus no
relationship of employer and employee exists between at any point of time under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The
present claim application is legally not maintainable on the ground of provisions mentioned under section 2(oo) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as applicant Ms Rita Devi was working under contract with M/s Pratap Singh Security
Agency and there is no relation of employee and employer with HPCL. As applicant Ms Rita Devi was working under
6714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract with M/s Pratap Singh Security Agency and there is no relation of employee and employer with HPCL and
thus the present claim application is without jurisdiction. Further it is also stated by O.P management that the present
claim is not maintainable on the ground that admittedly the claimant was a contract labour and engaged through
contractor i.e. M/s Pratap Singh Security Agency, respondent no.1. Thus the provisions of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 would be applicable in the present alleged dispute rather than provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further on behalf of management it is prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to
consider the present legal objection and decide the same in accordance with law in the interest of justice.
On 06.02.2026 the case was reserved for final award.
On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim statement being provided several
opportunities. Hence in given circumstances it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the
Industrial dispute.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Answered Accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 06.02.2026 Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1355.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सुरेि चंर ृाल
के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृं
चाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
38/2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/10/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Suresh Chandra Pal which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-26012/10/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 38 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Suresh Chandra Pal S/o Late Chhotey Lal,
C/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6715
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/10/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Suresh Chandra Pal S/o Late Chhote Lal w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just,
fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Suresh Chandra Pal (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1.
The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2.
The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3.
The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party was
also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4.
It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of documents
were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and deprived of his
service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947 and 1948. This
persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5.
It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6.
The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice pay
or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to all
due payments.
7.
It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased,
arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
6716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt. has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in
Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction
and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.30113. In view of above submissions the reference
order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6717
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02
and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02.
Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come
to an end by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law
and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for
2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the
new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01
Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended
period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in
favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In
view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be
rejected.
(viii)
The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came
to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the
defendant's written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the
applicant. Opposite party No. 1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the
plaintiff was made to work under their control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2
are the principal employers of the applicant and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after examining all the facts, statements, and records of
the parties, has issued a reference order, which is proper and legal. The judgments cited by the
defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court
for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of
applicant were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore,
opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and
contrary to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party
No. 1 and 2 under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite
party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute
rests with opposite party No. 1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the
applicant is of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1
and 2 are solely responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the
statements made in paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 2 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the
Act, the application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the
application has been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal
should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
6718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party
no. 3 for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because
the respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of
the dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and
baseless and cannot be accepted.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii)
Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv)
Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi)
Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Suresh Chandra Pal S/o Late Chhote Lal w.e.f.
31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6719
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparantly in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled from paper number 6/1 some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in
September, 2009 he worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance
register is submitted only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is
also filed salary sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in
September, 2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year
2012 applicant is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed
salary sheet and attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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-
6720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1356.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री श्याम मनोहर
के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृं
चाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
39/2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/9/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Shyam Manohar which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26012/9/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 39 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Shyam Manohar S/o Late Pati Ram,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6721
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/9/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh S/o Late Pati Ram w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just,
fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Shyam Manohar Singh (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim
with averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 12.03.2012 until the
morning of December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated
on the evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from March 12, 2012, to December 31, 2013. The third party was
also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a UP workman of
the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law,
biased, arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
6722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from date as applicant stated in our claim statement to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that
the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The
O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant
apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance. Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be
directed to file its response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in
Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction
and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference
order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02
and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02.
Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come
to an end by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law
and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for
2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the
new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01
Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6723
period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in
favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In
view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be
rejected.
(viii) The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came
to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written
statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No.
1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their
control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant
and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after
examining all the facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is
proper and legal. The judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference
order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the
Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal submissions
in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable. Opposite party No. 1
and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant were utilized by
opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the
principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary
to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2
under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are
the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No. 1
and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is of
a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely
responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in
paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has been
filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii) The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv) No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3 for
reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the
dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi) The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and baseless
and cannot be accepted.
6724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12.
Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13.
Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14.
Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15.
Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii) Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv) Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi) Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh S/o Late Pati Ram w.e.f.
31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 12.03.2012 to 31.12.2013 without any break
but from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from 12th March, 2012
to 31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6725
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, applicant filed payment
voucher and attendance sheet of in the year of September 2009, January 2010, December 2010, September 2011,
December 2011 and January 2012 he never worked because he joined in March, 2012 In year 2012 applicant is
worked in March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and attendance register
and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
6726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1357.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जसद्ध गोृाल के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 40/2015)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/8/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 40/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Sidh Gopal which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-26012/8/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 40 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Sidh Gopal S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sachan,
C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 4th day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 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-26012/8/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Sidh Gopal S/o Shyam Lal Sachan w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6727
Claimant/workman Shri Sidh Gopal (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party
was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased,
arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
6728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i)
The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in
Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not
applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction
and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference
order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v)
The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02
and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02.
Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come
to an end by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law
and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for
2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the
new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01
Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended
period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in
favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In
view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be
rejected.
(viii)
The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came
to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6729
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1&2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written
statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No.
1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their
control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant
and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after
examining all the facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is
proper and legal. The judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference
order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the
Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant
were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1
and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary
to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2
under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are
the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No.
1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is
of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely
responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in
paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has
been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3
for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the
dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and
baseless and cannot be accepted.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1. Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's office.
2. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
6730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding deposit
of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii) Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv) Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi) Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Sidh Gopal S/o Shyam Lal Sachan w.e.f. 31.12.2013
is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6731
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and
attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 04.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
6732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1358.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
स्ट्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड; मेससय ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री लखन ससह
यादव के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
41/2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/19/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 41/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Lakhan Singh Yadav which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[No. L-26012/19/2015-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
ID Case No. 41 of 2015
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Lakhan Singh Yadav S/o Late Deshraj Singh Yadav,
C/O Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur,
Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.
…………………….Workman
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)-
208001.
2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.
3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).
……………………..Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)
As per reference letter dated 30/06/2015 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-26012/19/2015 (IR(M) dt. 30.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,
Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Lakhan Singh Yadav, workman w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &
legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Shri Lakhan Singh Yadav (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6733
1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of
December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the
evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.
2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the
directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being
performed.
3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party
was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including
overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of
documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and
deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947
and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.
5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to
complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his
dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.
6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice
pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to
all due payments.
7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other
previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated
below:
1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the
Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact,
and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer
relationship or not, the order dated 30.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a UP workman of
the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 30.6.2015 is therefore bad in law,
biased, arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The words used in the order of reference dated 30.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about
existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen.
In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be
a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated
30.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the
fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.
3. The reference order dated 30.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management
of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous,
self-contradictory and evasive.
4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of
industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 30.6.2015, thereby
rendering it liable to be quashed.
5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton
Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.
6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to
consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka
v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and
others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that
daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.
7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 30.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been
reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been
terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before
this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the
6734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is
liable to be rejected.
8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions
made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever
existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the
contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.
9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus
emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the
applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P.
No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor
engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S
Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the
contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.
Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its
response.
10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29,
Noida.
11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.
Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
(i) The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in Section
2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not applicable upon
the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to
be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.
(ii)
Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the
reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be
rejected against O.P. No. 03.
(iii)
The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the
applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the
disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.
(iv)
No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is
submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor
respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference
order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.
(v) The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02 and it
was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02. Therefore
the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come to an end
by afflux of time.
(vi)
The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law
and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.
(vii)
The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for
2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the
new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01
Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended
period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in
favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In
view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be
rejected.
(viii) The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not
admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came
to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6735
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 & 2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written
statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No.
1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their
control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant
and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after
examining all the facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is
proper and legal. The judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference
order has been sent to the Hon‘ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the
Hon‘ble Court.
(ii)
The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal
submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant
were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1
and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.
(iii)
The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary
to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2
under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are
the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No.
1 and 2.
(iv)
The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless,
unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is
of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely
responsible for the applicant‘s claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in
paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.
(v)
The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.
After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In
rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:
(i)
The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the
application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has
been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.
(ii)
The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the
respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
(iii)
The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Please dismiss it.
(iv)
No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3
for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.
(v)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the
respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the
dispute, it is therefore unreliable.
(vi)
The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and
baseless and cannot be accepted.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1.
Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
office.
2.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.
3.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.
4.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.
5.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.
6736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.
7.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.
8.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.
9.
Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.
10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.
11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.
12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November,
December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.
13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.
14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
delayed payment.
15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding
deposit of funds.
In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:
(i)
Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970.
(ii)
Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises
736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)
(iii)
Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar
Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.
(iv)
Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(v)
Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.
(vi)
Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/
M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Lakhan Singh Yadav w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but
from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to
31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent
as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite
party that is illegal and unfair.
As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-
employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The
opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the
applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning
firefighting/surveillance.
The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the
applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009
to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any
point of time.
The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.
Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known
to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work
came to an end by afflux of time.
Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time
bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6737
Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the
contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since
the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to
30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013.
After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is
engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.
The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his
termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.
As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the
applicant.
Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled
documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never
work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.
Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite
party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he
engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there
is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after
30.09.2013.
Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he
worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted
only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary
sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September,
2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant
is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and attendance register and
in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.
As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:
25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed 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;
As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act.
After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee
of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary
evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL‘ award.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 03.02.2026
Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer
6738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 25 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1359.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईसीआईसीआई प्रूडेंजियल लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और न्यू जेनरेिन बैंक्स एंड
इंश्योरेंस स्ट्टाफ एसोजसएिन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
एनायकुलम, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 45/2021) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-12011/13/2021-आईआर(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026
S.O. 1359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. and New Generation Banks and Insurance Staff
Association which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.
[F. No. L-12011/13/2021-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Date: 23-04-2026
PRESENT: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Industrial Dispute No. 45/2021
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
New Generation Banks and
Insurance Staff Association,
Maruthi Vilas, Canon Shed Road,
Kochi, Ernakulam-682 011.
…
I Party / Petitioner
AND
1.
The Manager,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd,
1089, 2nd floor, South Block,
ICIC Prulife Towers , Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400 025.
2.
The Head HR,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd,
Second floor, Ravi‘s Arcade, M.G. Road,
Ernakulam-682 035.
…
II Party / Respondent
APPEARANCE
For the Appellant
:
None
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2
:
M/s. Menon & Pai, Advocates
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6739
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment, New Delhi vide its order
No. L-12011/13/2021 (IR) B-I) dated 16-08-2021 referred the following Industrial Dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication:-
2. The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the action of the management of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance
Company to deny employment to Smt. Swapna Nagapally is justified or not? If not to
what relief the employee is entitled to?”
3. Earlier, this Industrial Dispute was registered as ID No.45 of 2021 by this Tribunal and
notice/summon was issued by the Registry to the Petitioner Association for appearance on
08.11.2021 and to file claim statement, but none appeared on behalf of the Union/Petitioner.
Subsequently, the case was adjourned to 23.11.2021, 09.02.2021 and 04.05.2022 to file claim
statement of the Petitioner. Even no vakalat has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/union. On
04.05.2022, when the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the union
and the Petitioner was set set-exparte and the case was adjourned to 14.09.2022. On that date,
neither the Petitioner was present nor any adjournment was filed by the Petitioner/Union before
this Tribunal.
4. To-day, when the matter is called for hearing, neither the Petitioner nor the learned
counsel on behalf of the Petitioner Union is present. No petition has been filed by the Petitioner
seeking any adjournment. Though, this I.D was filed by the Petitioner Union before this
Tribunal in the year 2021, the Petitioner/Union never entered appearance and remained
absent and in the interest of justice, several opportunity of hearing was provided to the
Petitioner/Union. From the above, it appears that the Petitioner is not evincing any interest to
pursue the appeal.
5.
Further, the very same Petitioner preferred IOP No.20/2025 before the Hon‘ble Sub-
Court, Thrissur in the year 2025 against her termination order from the service of the ICICI
Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. Copy of the plaint furnished by the Plaintiff is
placed on record,
AWARD
In view of the aforesaid discussion, keeping in view of the above position and in terms of
provisions of Rule 15(1) of the EPAT (Procedure) Rules, 1997, this Industrial Dispute raised by
the Petitioner Union is liable for dismissal. The ID is dismissed accordingly.
Record be consigned to the record room.
Place:Ernakulam
Date: 23-04-2026
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1360. —औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV
(a93/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-62]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
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)-62]
SALONI, Dy. Director
6740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date: 08-06-2026
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No.93/2022
BETWEEN
Shri R.Subash,
S/o. D.Rajendran
25/D, Dr.Ambedkar Street,
Kashpa Power Line Street,
Vellore-632 001.
:
1st Party/ Petitioner
AND
1.The Chief General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
239, Vidham Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021.
2.The Zonal Chief Manager,
Andhra Bank Zonal Office,
No.168, Linghi Chetty Street,
Chennai-600 001.
3.The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank, Katpadi Branch,
Vellore Taluk & District.
:
2n Party/Respondents
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
: M/s. K.L.Sekar, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ Respondent No.
: M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocates
This is a claim petition filed by the Petitioner Shri R.Subash u/s.2A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 directly seeking relief of reinstatement into service of the Respondent/Bank with
continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.
2.
As per the case of the Petitioner, he was appointed on 29.01.2015 in the Respondent /Bank
as temporary staff at the fixed pay of Rs.5850/- plus DA & HRA as payable at that time.
Subsequently, the Respondent/bank refused employment on 29.01.2015 (It appears that the
Petitioner has wrongly mentioned this date by mistake). On perusal of reply filed by the
Respondent/Bank, it reveals that Petitioner was denied service on 12.11.2018. Therefore, the
Petitioner claims that he has served more than 240 days in the Respondent/Bank and thus,
claims reinstatement into service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other
attendant benefits with costs.
3.
The Respondents in its reply stated that on 29.01.2015, the Andhra Bank opened a branch
at Katpadi, Vellore District. The Petitioner was son of one Mrs. Maheshwari, who was working
as part-time sweeper in Vellore branch and on her suggestion, the Petitioner was engaged as a
temporary sub-staff. At the time of opening the branch at Katpadi, regular appointment could not
have offered, so it was merely a temporary arrangement and was not made after adopting due
process of recruitment.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6741
4.
It is further stated in the Counter reply that in the year 2017 recruitment process for the
posts of sub-staff was initiated to fill up 10 vacancies in which the Petitioner was also
participated, but could not have satisfied age criteria and therefore, the Petitioner‘s case could
not have considered and after conclusion of recruitment process, one Ramya, a handicapped
girl (deaf & dumb) was selected and posted as sub-staff of the Katpadi branch and she joined
during November, 2018 and on her joining, the Petitioner‘s service had to be discontinued. It is
also stated that 5 years age relaxation was applicable to a candidate belongs to Scheduled
Caste category and the Petitioner‘s date of birth was 07.01.1986 and at the time of recruitment,
he crossed his age limit and attained the age of 31 years. Therefore, the Petitioner was over-
aged and thus his candidature could not be considered at the time of recruitment.
5.
It is further stated in the reply statement that the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner
is barred by limitation and thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as the Petitioner was
denied service w.e.f 12.11.2018 and claim statement was filed before this Tribunal on
30.08.2022, which is beyond three years of limitation period.
Witnesses Examined:
For the First Party Petitioner :
WW1 Shri R.Subash
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner‘s side:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
Copy of Transfer Certificate of the Petitioner
Ex.W2
Copy of Department of Employment & Training card of the Petitioner
Ex.W3
Copy of community certificate of the Petitioner
Ex.W4
23.04.2015
Copy of letter engaging Petitioner was temporary sweeper of the Respondent
Ex.W5
-
Copy of application submitted by the Petitioner for the post of part time sweeper to the Respondent
bank.
Ex.W6
-
Copy of acknowledgement issued by Respondent bank
Ex.W7
-
Copy of salary records of the Petitioner for the period 2015 to 2017.
Ex.W8
09.02.2022
Copy of petition in I.D. No. case No.MM45/11/2021-B2 Industrial Disputes of the Petitioner
Ex.W9
-
Copy of reply filed by the 2nd Respondent in ID case No. MM45/11/2021-B2
Ex.W10
30.05.2022
Copy of certificate of Conciliation Officer , Chennai issued in No.M7(28) /2021-B2 u/s.2A of the ID
Act, 1947.
Documents Marked:
On behalf of Respondent/Management
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M 1
02.03.2017
Recruitment of sub-staff Notification from recruitment section, HR Department, Andhra Bank to
Zonal Office, Chennai
Ex.M 2
02.05.2022
Notice from I/C RLC (Central) Chennai u/r No.MM-7/28/2021-B2 notifying hearing on 12.05.2022
issued parties to the dispute.
Ex.M3
12.05.2022
Proceedings of hearing on 12.02.2022 before RLC, Chennai in M/45/11/2021-B2.
6.
Heard the learned counsels appearing for either side and perused the records. The
questions that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is time barred or not?
ii) Whether the service of the Petitioner was terminated illegally?
6742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
On perusal of the counter statement filed by the Respondent/bank, it is clear that the
Petitioner has filed the claim petition u/s. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before this
Tribunal belatedly. Admittedly, the Petitioner was discharged from duty by Respondent bank
w.e.f. 12.11.2018 and the Petitioner has filed the claim petition on 02.09.2022. The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the industrial dispute has been filed
after the prescribed limitation period and therefore, it is liable to be rejected as not maintainable.
8.
He relied on the case law in Shri Ravikumar Vs. Management of Tamil Nadu Transport
Corporation , Tirunelveli Division. The facts of the case are as follows:-
The Petitioner in that case was working as driver with the Respondent Corporation and was
dismissed from service on 04.04.2005. The Petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Office
on 02.01.2014 in which failure report was given on 25.03.2014. The Petitioner has raised an
Industrial Dispute No.64/2014 before the Labour Court and the Tribunal dismissed the ID on
the sole ground of limitation by applying section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9.
Subsequently, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras
in W.P.(MD) No.4269 of 2017 and the Hon‘ble High Court vide its order dated 11.04.2017
under para 8 held as under:-
―8. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a judgment of this Court in
W.P. No. 15552 of 2015 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed a
similar Writ Petition filed by the workman who challenged the award passed by the
Labour Court dismissing the claim statement made by the petitioner therein on the ground
of delay. After referring to the amended provision, this Court has held as follows:
"The aforesaid provision infers that the workman must raise an industrial dispute before
the Conciliation Officer and upon expiry of 45 days from the date of filing an
application before the Conciliation Officer, the workman can move application to the
Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of his dismissal. In any
event, right conferred under Section 2A of the Act lapse immediately preceding the date
of expiry of three years of the date of dismissal. Sub-section (3) of Section 2A operates
independently, despite the continuation of the conciliation proceeding. While such being
the settled provision, in the case on hand, the petitioner was dismissed from service on
06.08.2010. Thereafter, after a lapse of 4 years and 2 months, he filed an application
under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court only on 31.10.2014. At this
juncture, the contention of the petitioner is that he was unable to file an application
before the Labour Court, since his application filed before the Conciliation Officer was
pending. Such contention of the petitioner cannot stand to legal scrutiny, for, Sub-
Section 3 of Section 2A of the Act operates independently, despite the continuation of
the conciliation proceedings. Therefore, he ought to have filed an application before the
learned Labour Court with three years from the date of dismissal order passed by the
first respondent Corporation on 06.08.2010."
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner argued that time must be
counted from the date of failure of conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner.
This contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is against the provisions of section
2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
11. Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 runs as under:-
"Section 2A of the principal Act shall be numbered as sub- section (1) thereof and after sub-
section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-sections shall be inserted, namely:-
(2) anything Notwithstanding contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-
section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of
the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6743
application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the
dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate
Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall
apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred
to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal
before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."
12. As per the case of Mr. Prince Packianathan Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu
Transport Corporation in W.P (MD) No.15552 of 2015 dated 28.08.2015 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras, aforesaid provision infers that the workman must raise an
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and upon expiry of 45 days from the date of
filing an application before the Conciliation Officer, the workman can move application to the
Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of his dismissal. In any event, right
conferred under Section 2A of the Act lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three
years of the date of dismissal. Sub-section (3) of Section 2A operates independently, despite the
continuation of the conciliation proceeding.
13. This Tribunal is bound by the above findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the
case of Prince Packianathan cited supra. The limitation period prescribed under the above
provision is mandatory and this Tribunal has no discretion to extend the period of limitation.
This fact is established that the Petitioner after expiry of three years has preferred the claim
petition before this Tribunal on 2nd September, 2022. Therefore, in the light of the above
reasons, the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed mere on the ground of being time
barred in limini.
AWARD
As per discussion above, the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation and
the same is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Record be consigned to the record room.
Place : CHENNAI
Date : 08.06.2026
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1361.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(03/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/57/2017- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Allahabad Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/57/2017- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
6744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 03/2018
Date of Passing Award – 21stJanuary, 2026
Between:
The Deputy General Manager,
Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office,
3/1-B, IRC Village, Civic Centre,
Bhubaneswar - 751015.
…
1st Party-Management.
-versus-
The General Secretary,
Orissa State Allahabad Bank Employees Union,
C/o Allahabad Bank, Service Branch,
IRC Village, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar(Orissa)-751025.
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
Mr. Subrat Mishra, Advocate
… For the 1st Party-
Management
Mr. Pradyumna Pattnaik,
Advocate
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the Section Officer to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi vide order No. L-12011/57/2017 – IR(B-II), dated 26.12.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the
following schedule:-
―Whether the claim of the Union for over time wage to be paid to the employees/award staff members of
Allahabad Bank who have worked extra time beyond normal working hours during the period of
demonetization from 10/11/16 to 18/11/16 except on 12 & 13/11/16(since paid) by the management of
Allahabad Bank, Odisha as per the provision of Bi-partite Settlement is legally tenable and justified? If not,
what relief the employees are entitled to?
2.
The case of the Second Party-Union is as follows:
That the Employees/Award Staff(Non-Executive Staff) of the management of Allahabad Bank, Odisha Zone,
Odisha had worked extra time beyond the normal working hours during the period of demonetization from
10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 as per notice issued by the Reserve Bank of India vide its letter No. RBI/ 2016-17/112/
DCM(Pig) No. 1226/ 10.27.00 /2016-17 dated 08.11.2016 to all Public Sector Banks, Public Private Sector Banks,
etc. Subsequently, all the employees of the management bank had taken their step to cope up with the decision of RBI
and extended their support by adhering to the flexible working hours after completion of the in-structured work. The
eligible employee had submitted a representation for releasing the payment of overtime allowances as per the
Bipartite Agreement but the management had kept the matter pending without giving any decision and avoided to pay
the legitimate demand of the employees. The employees of different branches of Allahabad Bank in Odisha raised the
matter before the Union, which had been represented to the Head of the Odisha Zone on 16.11.2016, 03.10.2017 and
20.03.2017 but the management had released part payment of overtime allowance only for two days particularly for
normal duty hours for 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016. Subsequently the Union took up the matter before the Labour
Department i.e. before the Asst. Labour Commissioner(Central), Bhubaneswar but the management did not agree
during the conciliation proceeding, resulting in reference of this case. The holding of payment of overtime allowances
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6745
to eligible employees is illegal and arbitrary as it is their statutory right to claim for the extended abnormal working
hours in the course of working days and also holidays during the period of demonetization from 10.11.2016 to
18.11.2016. The employees of the bank were on work, extending their working hours during the period from
10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016. The parties are duty-bound to the Bi-partite Agreement but the benefits of eligible bank
employees during the contingent works are not being followed. The management bank had paid the allowance for the
overtime work done on 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 only
for the normal hours of work but not for extended hours of overtime work. The other nationalised banks like UCO
Bank, Bank of Baroda, and Central Bank of India and many other banks had released the overtime allowances to the
eligible employees abiding the overtime as a statutory rights of the employees.
A prayer has been made with a direction to the management to pay the overtime allowances to all eligible
staff/employees during the extended abnormal working hours from the period 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 as per Bi-
partite Settlement.
3.
On the other hand, the case of the first party management is as follows:
The present dispute is not at all maintainable both in the eye of law and facts. The Union is not entitled to any relief
and the claim of the union is unfounded and baseless. There is no material to show that this is an industrial dispute.
The bank had already paid the overtime for 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 to the eligible employees. In an emergency
like situation and for the successful implementation of the demonetization scheme of the Government of India, all the
banks in Odisha were kept open up to 6 P.M for a few days to tackle the unprecedented rush of the public for
exchanging the specified bank notes. The member of eligible staff had already been compensated by payment of
overtime for two days, i.e. 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 under the instruction of Head office so, no further
compensation in any form is payable. The raising of dispute by the Second Party Union is ill- conceived and without
any basis.
A prayer has been made to pass an award in favour of the first party management.
4.
The 2nd party-workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the 1st Party-Management denying the
averments mentioned in the written statement of the 1st Party-Management.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties following issues are settled in this case.
ISSUES
I)
Whether the claim of the Union for over time wage to be paid to the employees/award staff members of
Allahabad Bank who have worked extra time beyond normal working hours during the period of
demonetization from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 except on 12 & 13.11.2016 (since paid) by the
management of Allahabad Bank, Odisha as per the provision of Bi-partite Settlement is legally tenable
and justified?
II)
If not, what relief the employees are entitled?‖
6.
The 2nd Party-Union has examined only one witness in this case. He is W.W.- 1 Sri Trinath Sahoo. The
Union has not proved any documents in support of its case.
7.
The Management of Allahabad Bank has neither examined any witnesses nor proved any documents in
this case.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. I & II
8.
The learned lawyer for the 2nd party-Union has submitted that during the period of demonetization from
10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 as per notice issued by the Reserve Bank of India all the employees of the Management-
Bank had extended their support by extending working hours after completion of their work, but they have not been
paid the over-time work done by the employees from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016.
9.
He has also argued that the Management had released part time or over-time allowances only for two days of
12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016. He has further submitted that the employees had been paid for duty on 12.11.2016 and
on 13.11.2016 for normal hours of work but not for extended hours of over-time work whereas other Nationalized
Banks like UCO Bank, Canara Bank and others had released over time wages to the eligible employees as per bi-
partite agreement.
10.
On the other-hand the learned lawyer for the Management has submitted that the 1st Party-Management-
Allahabad Bank had already paid the over-time wages for 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 to eligible employees and in
emergency like situation of implementation of de-monetization scheme all the Banks in Odisha
6746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
were kept opened up-to 6 P.M. for two days, so the claim of the Union is not maintainable.
11.
At the outset of discussions the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss the evidence of W.W.-1 .
The W.W.-1 Sri Trinath Sahoo has deposed that he is appearing on behalf of the Odisha State Allahabad Bank
Employees Union at Bhubaneswar. He has also deposed that the Union has raised this dispute for payment of over-
time duty allowances/overtime wages of the employees/award staff (non-executive) of Allahabad Bank as per bi-
partite settlement dated 19.10.1966 who worked extra time beyond the normal working hours during the period of
demonetization from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016. He has also deposed that the Management had released part payment
of over-time allowances for 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 enunciating as holidays under the clauses of Bi-partite
settlement. He has also deposed that the Union took the matter before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),
Bhubaneswar and the conciliation proceeding failed as the Bank-Management had not considered the claim of the
Union. He has also stated that other nationalized Banks like State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of
India and other Banks has released the over-time allowances to the eligible employees, so the employes/award staff of
Allahabad Bank are entitled for over-time allowances for the period from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016. In the cross
examination he has stated that there was a direction from the office of the Prime Minister to co-operate and to work
hard during the period in dispute, but we had not received over-time wages for over-time work during the aforesaid
period. He has also stated that the Management of other Banks had paid over-time wages to their employees during
that period. He has also stated that the employees got their wages on 12.11.2016 and on 13.11.2016 for the normal
working hours as those two days were public holidays and they had not received any over-time wages for those two
days. He has also deposed that there was no direction in other Zones of Management- to work over-time, whereas the
present Management had directed the employees in writing for over-time work.
12.
The Union has not proved any documents in support of his claim but has filed some documents which
requires for discussions here.
The Union has filed the extract copy of hour of work as mentioned in bipartite settlement. Further the Union has filed
a circular of UCO Bank dated 30.03.2017 in which it is mentioned that award staff who were required to work in
extended business hour in the period from 10.11.2016 to 19.11.2016 except 12th November and 13th November, 2016
should be eligible for payment of over time allowances as per applicable provisions of bipartite settlement for actual
over time work. Further the Union has filed the circular of the Union Bank dated 13.01.2017 in which it is mentioned
that payment of over time allowances as per applicable provisions of bipartite settlement for all working days from
14.11.2016 to 19.11.2016. Additionally, the Union has also filed a circular letter dated 03.02.2017 of Central Bank of
India in which it is mentioned that upon considering the request received from various quarters management has
decided to take over-time to award staff who have worked on the extended hours maximum up to 7 P.M. for the 10th,
11th, 15th to 17th November, 2016.
13.
Now after analyzing the pleadings of both the parties and after analyzing oral evidence of W.W.-1 as well as
documents filed by the Union it is quite apparent that the award staff/employees (non-executive) of the Management
of Allahabad bank Odisha Zone had worked beyond the normal of working hours during the period of demonetization
from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016. Further it is an admitted fact that, the employees/award staff of the Management of
Allahabad Bank, Odisha Zone had been compensated for the work done by the workmen for 12.11.2016 and
13.11.2016 which were holidays.
14.
It is required to mention here that the Central Bank of India, UCO Bank and Union Bank of India had issued
their circulars regarding payment of over-time wages to the award staff of their Branch for working in extended
business hour for the period 10th to 18th November, 2016 as per bipartite settlement.
15.
Now the 1st Party-management has not denied any-where that during the period of 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016
except 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016 the award staff/employees of its Bank had not worked for extended business hour
during the said period, so it is an admitted position that the award staff and employees of the 1st Party-Management
had worked for extended business hour during the period from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 except 12th& 13th
November, 2016 However, the Management of 1st Party had compensated the employees/award staff for their
work done on 12th and 13th November which are holidays.
16.
In view of the above discussions, the Tribunal is of the view that the claim of the Union for over-time wages
to be paid to the employees/award staff members of the Allahabad Bank who worked for extra time beyond normal
working hours during the period of demonetization from 10.11.2016 t0 18.11.2016 except 12 and 13 November, 2016
is legal and justified. Hence the Issue no. I and II are decided in favour of the 2nd Party-Union.
ORDER
17.
In view of the above discussions (supra) the employees/award staff of the Allahabad Bank of Odisha Zone
are entitled for the relief for the payment of over time allowances who had worked extra time beyond the normal
working hours during the period from 10.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 except on 12 & 13 November, 2016.
18.
This is the Award of the Tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6747
19.
Let this Award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 for publication.
20.
Office is directed to consign the record to the record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1362.— औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(71/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. एल-12011/67/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.71/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/67/2018- IR (B-II)]
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. 71/2018
Date of Passing Award – 20thJanuary, 2026
The Circle Head,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Deendayal Bhawan,
4th Floor, Ashok Nagar,
Bhubaneswar (Orissas)
…
1st Party-Management.
-Vrs.-
The General Secretary,
All Odisha Punjab National Bank
Employees Union, C/o. Punjab
National Bank, 111-A, Station Square,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
Sri Manas Kumar Swain, A/R
…
For the 1st Party-
Management
Sri Ramesh Chandra Mansingh, A/R.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
6748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the Section Officer to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, Bhubaneswar vide order No. L-12011/67/2018 – IR(B-II) dated 14.11.2018 in exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) for adjudication of a dispute, under the following schedule:-
―1. ―Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Zonal Head, Bhubaneswar, not
offering appointment to workman Shri B. Santosh Kumar
as regular sub-staff sweeper based on preference over others as per the provisions of Industry level Biparttite
Settlement of the management dated 19.10.1966 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the aggrieved workman is
entitled to?‖
2. ―Whether the action on the part of the management Punjab National Bank, Hinjilcut Branch in
disengaging the workman Shri B. Santosh Kumar, Part Time Sweeper without complying the provision of Section
25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
2.
The case of the 2nd party-union is as follows:
That the service condition of Bank employees is governed by the Industry Level Bi-partite settlement signed
from time to time since 19.10.1966 between the management of Banks represented through Indian Bank‘s
Association and the workmen of different banks represented through Indian Bank‘s Association (IBA) and through
All India Bank Employees‘ Association. The provisions of Industry Level Bi-partite Settlement are binding on both
the parties. The clause 20.8 of 1st Bi-partite settlement dated 19.10.1966 mentions that ―A temporary workman
may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a
period of three months during which the bank shall make arrangements for filling up the vacancy permanently and if
such temporary workman is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy the period of such temporary employment
will be taken into account as part of his probationary period.
Further the clause 20.12 of the settlement provides that ―other things being equal, temporary workman will
be given preference for filling up permanent vacancies and if selected they may have to undergo probation.
The workman B Santosh Kumar was working as a part time sweeper on 1/3rd scale wage in Hinjilicut Branch
of Punjab National Bank since 14.08.2015 on temporary basis as no sweeper was appointed by the bank till that date
and he was being paid his monthly wages regularly. His performance and conduct was quite satisfactory which is
evident from the letter dated 11.02.2016 of Branch
Manager, Hinjilicut Branch, Punjab National Bank. Later on, the 1st party-management had taken step to fill up the
vacancy of sweeper under Bhubaneswar circle permanently and consequently a recruitment process was initiated. The
workman B. Santosh Kumar was allowed to participate in the recruitment process along with others and he was
selected for recruitment as sweeper as per select list. At the time of initiating the recruitment process three vacancies
were identified for sweepers in the District of Ganjam(Odisha) but after final selection two vacancies were filled up
keeping the third vacancy at Hingilicut Branch unfilled. The workman B. Santosh Kumar had worked for more than 2
years and 3 months from 14.08.2015 to 06.12.2017 on temporary basis, so he is entitled to be regularized in Bank
service retrospectively from the date of his first engagement counting the entire temporary period of engagement but
he had not yet been appointed by the 1st party-management. In the mean time when a dispute was raised before the
Conciliation Authority, the 1st party-management disengaged the concerned workman in most vindictive manner
without even complying the Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st party-management has
practiced the unfair labour practice by disengaging the concerned workman after long period of service of 845 days.
A prayer has been made to issue necessary direction to the 1st party-management for appointment of
workman B. Santosh Kumar.
3.
On the other hand, the case of 1st party-management as per the written statement is as follows: -
That the workman B. Santosh Kumar is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. He was merely working on leave gap arrangement and his services were utilized as and when required, for
which he was duly paid. There had been no agreement with the workman and there is no employer-employee
relationship existed between the 1st party-management and the concerned workman, so there is no Industrial Dispute.
The sweepers were recruited through due procedure of recruitment by publishing the advertisement
in the newspaper and on the notice board. In this matter advertisement for recruitment of part time sweeper was issued
and the concerned workman had submitted an application but as per Select List he was placed on the 6th position
in the merit list for S.C category so his name was not approved for appointment as Part Time Sweeper. The vacancy
for the recruitment for the part time sweeper in districts under Bhubaneswar circle was published on newspaper dated
04.11.2016 in which three vacancies (1 SC, 1 ST and 1 UR) were identified for the District of Ganjam for which
9(nine) applications were received directly and 58 candidates were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6749
After scrutinizing all the applicant, 29 candidates (18 SC, 7 ST, 4 UR) were found eligible for the post of Part Time
Sweeper as per bank guidelines. After that category wise list of Ganjam District was prepared and the candidates at
Sl. No. 1 in each category in the merit list were approved for appointment.
The concerned workman was merely engaged on leave gap arrangement for which he was paid and he was
not given temporary employment in Bank, so the provision of clause 20.8 of Bi-partite settlement is not applicable in
this case. Moreover, the workman had applied for appointment in the post of Part Time Sweeper in view of
advertisement dated 04.11.2016 and his candidature was duly considered but his name appeared at No. 6 on the merit
list for SC category as a result, he was not appointed as part time sweeper. Further, the workman was engaged on
leave gap arrangement so he cannot claim status of temporary employee. The workman was engaged as sweeper on
stop gap arrangement for sweeping the Branch premises and was compensated for services given by him. The services
of concerned workman were no longer required so his service was discontinued as no employer-employee
relationship was existed between him and the 1st party-management. Moreover, the workman has no right to claim
regularization in service in any manner.
A prayer has been made to pass an award in favour of the 1st party-management.
4.
The 2nd party-union has filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the 1st party-management denying all
the averments made in the written statement of the Management.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings both the parties following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Zonal Head, Bhubaneswar, not offering
appointment to workman Shri B. Santosh Kumar as regular sub-staff sweeper based on preference over
others as per the provisions of Industry level Biparttite Settlement of the management dated 19.10.1966 is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the aggrieved workman is entitled to?
3. Whether the action on the part of the management Punjab National Bank, Hinjilicut Branch in disengaging
the workman Shri B. Santosh Kumar, Part Time Sweeper without complying the provision of Section 25-F
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
4. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
The 2nd Party-Union has examined two witnesses. They are W.W.-1 Ramesh Chandra Mansingh and W.W-2
B. Santosh Kumar the disputant workman.
The W.W.-1 has proved the following documents which are marked as
Ext.-1 – Copy of the letter to Circle Head in respect of application of the workman, issued on dated
11.02.2016.
Ext.-2 – Copy of the letter of Branch Office, Hinjilicut dated 10.11.2016.
Ext.-3 – Copy of the PTS Recruitment dated 11.12.2017.
Ext.-4 – Copies of the Bank Pass Book.
Ext.-5 series – Copies of the credit cash vouchers.
Ext.-6 series – Copies of the Bipartite Settlement.
7.
The Management has examined only one witness. He is M.W.-1 Shri Manas Kumar Swain. He has proved
following documents which are marked as:-
Ext.-A – Copy of Newspaper publication dated 04.11.2016 in Oriya daily the Prameya.
Ext.-B – Copy of the Excel Sheet on the merit list for the post of PTS in Ganjam District.
Ext.-C – Copy of the list of eligible candidates for the PTS in Ganjan District.
FINDINGS
8.
The Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss first of all the Issue No. II
Issue No. II
9.
It has been submitted by the learned lawyer for the workman that the disputant workman B. Sanotsh Kumar
was working as a part time sweeper on 1/3rd scale wage in Hijilicut Branch of Punjab National Bank since 14.08.2015
6750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on temporary basis as no sweeper was appointed by that time. He has also argued that under clause 20.8 of the first
bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 a temporary workman may also be appointed to fill up a permanent vacancy
provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period of three months during which the Bank shall
make arrangement for filling up the vacancy permanently. He has also submitted that the disputant workman B.
Sanotosh Kumar had worked for more than two years on temporary basis, so he is entitled to be regularized in Bank
service from the date of his engagement.
10.
On the other-hand the A/R for the management has submitted that the disputant workman was engaged on
leave gap arrangement and his services were utilized as and when required for which he was duly paid. He has also
submitted that the management had issued an advertisement for recruitment of part time sweeper and the disputant
workman had participated in the process of selection but his name was not approved for appointment as he was placed
on 6th position on the merit list of SC category, so, the disputant workman is not entitled for regularization of his
service.
11.
At this stage the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties.
The W.W.-1 Ramesh Chandra Mansingh has deposed that he is appearing on behalf of the Union. He has
further deposed that Sri B. Santosh Kumar was working as a temporary sweeper in Hinjilicut branch of Punjab
national Bank on
1/3rd subordinate staff salary since 14.08.2015 and no permanent sweeper was posted there against regular vacancy.
He has also deposed that the Bank had initiated the recruitment process for filling up the vacancies of Sweeper in
Odisha including the vacancy at Hinjilicut Brach and Sri B. Santosh Kumar had applied for the same. He has further
deposed that there was recommendation of the Branch Manager of the Hinjilicut Branch for selection of Sri B.
Santosh Kumar. He has also deposed that the workman Sri B. Santosh Kumar was selected by the Bank for
recruitment as sweeper but he was not given any appointment letter despite the vacancy at Hinjilicut Branch.
In the cross examination he has deposed that the workman had applied for the post of part-time sweeper in
view of the advertisement issued by the branch and he was found eligible for the candidature. He has also deposed
that he is not aware that the selection process in the Bank is based on merit system and he is also not aware of the
position of merit system of fresh scrutiny candidates. He has denied the suggestion that since the disputant workman
was not appointed on temporary basis, so there is no violation of bi-partite settlement.
12.
The W.W.-2 Sri B. Santosh Kumar has deposed that he was working as temporary sweeper in Hinjilicut
Branch of Punjab National Bank on 1/3rd subordinate staff salary since 14.08.2015 as no permanent sweeper was
posted against the regular vacancy. He has also deposed that his conduct and performance were of higher rank, so the
Branch Manager had recommended his name vide letter dated 11.2.2016. He has also deposed that after publication
of advertisement for recruitment of temporary sweepers in Odisha he had submitted his application which was
forwarded to the Circle Office at Bhubaneswar. He has also deposed that he had appeared in interview board and he
was selected by the Bank in the recruitment as a sweeper but he had not been given appointment letter against the
vacancy of sweeper in Hinjilicut branch of the Management-Bank. He has further deposed that his salary was credited
to his account on different dates from 14.08.2015 to 10.02.2016 and subsequently the Bank had
paid his salary bifurcating the basic pay, dearness allowances and other allowances through vouchers dated
06.08.2016 to 20.05.2017. He has also deposed that the Union has raised the dispute before the labour authorities and
in the meantime he was abruptly disengaged from service from 07.12.2017.
In the cross examination he has deposed that he was a native of district Ganjam. He has further deposed that
he had applied for the post of part-time sweeper in the Punjab National Bank, Hinjilicut branch and as per the
advertisement there was one vacancy of SC quota, one vacancy of ST quota and one vacancy of Un-reserved quota.
He has also deposed that he has no knowledge that his name was at 6th rank/position in the merit list prepared by the
Bank. He has also deposed that he has no knowledge that nine applications were received directly by the Bank and 58
applications were sponsored by the employment exchange. He has denied the suggestion that he has not been
appointed temporarily in the Bank. He has also denied the suggestion that he has no right for regularization in the
Bank.
13.
The M.W.-1 Sri Manas Kumar Swain has deposed that he is working as Manager HR, Punjab National Bank
Circle Office, Berhampur. He has further deposed that the disputant workman was merely working on leave gap
arrangement basis and his services were utilized as and when required by the Bank. He has further deposed that there
was no agreement between the Management-Bank and disputant workman and no appointment letter was issued to
him, so no ―employer employee‖ relationship existed between the disputant workman and the Bank. He has further
deposed that after publication of advertisement for appointment of part time sweepers, several applications were
received by the Bank in which the candidature of the disputant was duly accepted, but in the merit list he was placed
on 6th position in SC category so his name was not approved for part-time sweeper. He has also deposed that as per
vacancy advertised in the local news-paper on 04.11.2016 three vacancies one SC, one ST and one UR were
identified for the district of Ganjam. He has also deposed that
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6751
after scrutiny and shortlisting of the candidates the name of the disputants workman was at place-6 in the merit list of
SC category, so his name was not approved for appointment. He has further deposed that the Union has failed to
interpret clause 20.8 of the bipartite settlement as it provides temporary workman may also be appointed to fill up the
permanent vacancy, but the disputant workman has not been engaged as a temporary workman. He has also deposed
that the disputant workman was engaged as a sweeper on stop gap arrangement basis for sweeping the branches and
was compensated for services rendered. He had also deposed that the disputant workman had never been appointed
as temporary sweeper in accordance with the recruitment/appointment rules / regulations.
He has proved three documents which are marked Ext.,-A to Ext.-C.
In the cross examination he has deposed that the Management of PNB has authorized him to depose before
the Tribunal. He has further deposed that there is no such document in the Bank to show that the disputant workman
was engaged on leave gap arrangement. He has also deposed that in the circle office there is no letter of
recommendation had been sent by the Branch Manager, Hinijlicut Branch regarding workman‘s engagement. He has
denied the suggestion that the disputant workman was engaged by the Bank-management Hinjilicut Branch since
14.08.2015 against a regular sanctioned vacancy of sweeper on 1/3rd scale of wages and the said post was lying
vacant since opening of the branch. He has denied the suggestion that there was any interview conducted for selection
of sweeper in which he participated and got 6th position in rank.
14.
Now coming to the documentary evidence It appears that Ext.-1 is a photocopy of letter dated 11.02.2016
issued by Branch Manager Hinjilicut Branch to the Circle Head for considering the application of the disputant
workman for permanent posting as sweeper in the branch. Further Ext.-2 is the forwarding letter of application of the
disputant workman for the post of part-time sweeper in the Bank. Ext.-3 is the copy of the letter dated
11.12.2017 recommending the
name of the disputant for selection for the post of part time sweeper. Ext.-4 is the copy of the pass book of the
disputant workman, Ext.-5 is the copy of the payment receipts and Ext.-6 is the photocopy of the relevant portion of
bipartite settlement.
15.
Now on the basis of pleadings of both the parties as well as on the basis of oral and documentary evidence it
is very much clear that the disputant workman namely B. Santosh Kumar was engaged by the Management Bank of
Hinjilicut branch of PNB for sweeping and cleaning of the premises of Bank on payment of 1/3rd of sub-staff salary.
Moreover, it is also apparent that the management of Punjab National Bank had issued an advertisement for the
recruitment of part-time sweeper in different places including in the Dist. of Ganjam. It is further clear that the
disputant workman had applied for the post of part-time sweeper and his candidature was accepted. Moreover, when
the process of selection of part-time sweepers had been advertised and as per that advertisement the disputant
workman had submitted his application and participated in the process of recruitment, but he was not selected so he
cannot raise regularisation of his service on the basis of clause 20.8 of the Bipartite Agreement.
16.
In view of the above discussions the Issue No. II is decided in favour of the Management.
ISSUE NO. I & III
17.
The Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss Issue No. I & III simultaneously.
With regard to Issue No. I and III the representative of the Union has submitted that the disputant workman
was working under the management of PNB for more than two years and three months from 14.8.2015 to 06.12.2017
on temporary basis but he was terminated from service on 06.12.2017 without compliance of the provisions of section
25-F of the I.D. Act.
On the other hand the learned lawyer for the management has submitted that the disputant workman was
engaged on leave gap basis as a part-time
sweeper for sweeping and cleaning of the branch premises, so he was not under the definition of ―workman‖ as per
section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. He has also submitted that the workman was not a regular employee of the management,
so there is no requirement of compliance of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
18.
Now the Tribunal will analyse the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties on this issue.
The W.W.-1 Ramesh Chandra Mansingh has deposed that the disputant workman was working as temporary
sweeper at Hinjilicut Branch of Punjab National Bank on 1/3rd subordinate staff salary since 14.08.2015 as no
permanent sweeper was posted there. He has further deposed that the disputant had raised a dispute before the labour
authorities, but the bank abruptly dis-engaged the disputant workman without compliance of the provisions of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act. In the cross examination he has deposed that the disputant workman was temporarily engaged as
a part time sweeper and as per section 2(s) of the I.D. Act he was a workman. He has also deposed that the disputant
workman had worked for 845 days continuously and his monthly salary was credited in the savings account of the
branch. He had denied the suggestion that the disputant workman had not performed his duties for 240 days.
6752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
Further, W.W.-2 B. Santosh Kumar has deposed that he was working as temporary sweeper in Hinjilicut
Branch of Punjab National Bank since 14.08.2015 on payment of 1/3rd wage of subordinate staff. His evidence on this
point has not been impeached in his cross examination.
20.
However, M.W.-1, Sri Manas Ranjan Swain has only deposed that the disputant workman was engaged on
leave gap arrangement for which he was paid.
21.
Now coming to the documentary evidence of the Union it appears that in Ext.-1 it categorically mentioned
that Sri B. Santosh Kumar had worked for cleaning and sweeping of branch premises with effect from 14.08.2015 on
payment of 1/3rd of s ub-staff salary. Further Ext.-2 and Ext.-3 also supports that
about the engagement of the disputant workman under the management of Punjab National Bank. Moreover Ext.-4
shows payment of wages to the disputant in his account from 14.08.2015 to 10.02.2016 and Ext.-6 shows payment of
wages to the disputant workman through vouchers from 06.08.2016 to 20.08.2017.
22.
The Management has not produced any documents to show that the disputant workman was not engaged
under the management of Punjab National Bank and he had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
23.
After analysing oral and documentary evidence of both the parties the Tribunal finds that the disputant
workman was engaged by the management of Punjab National Bank with effect from 14.08.2015 and he was
terminated from service on 07.12.2017. Moreover the Tribunal also finds that the disputant workman had worked
continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year under the management of Punjab National Bank.
24.
At this stage, it is important to mention here that the definition of workman has been defined U/s 2(s) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) which reads as follows:-
―workman‖ means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or
the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature
25.
At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a case as reported in 2011
LAB. I. C. 2799 (S.C) has been pleased to observe as follows:-
―14. It is apposite to observe that 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 a 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.
15.
Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability ground that the employee is not a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is
required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing
manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of
employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall
within the definition of ‗workman‖.
26.
It is required to mention here that the concerned workman namely Sri B. Santosh Kumar had worked in the
Punjab National Bank of Hinjilicut Branch, Ganjam as part time sweeper so he was employed in the Bank on hire
under the management of Punjab National Bank and consequently he is a ―workman‖ and there was a
relationship between the Management and the workman as ―employer and employee‖, so there is an industrial
dispute.
27.
At this stage It is relevant to mention here that the word ―retrenchment‖ has been defined under section 2(oo)
of the I.D. Act. Further continuous service has been mentioned under section 25-B of I.D. Act and the Condition
Precedent to Retrenchment have been mentioned under section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6753
The Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act reads as follows:-
Section 2(oo) -―retrenchment‖ means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does
not include-
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.
28.
The Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows:-
25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose 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 authorized
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 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)…………………………………..
The Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows:-
25-F 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.)
29.
Now in this case there is categorical evidence that the concerned workman had worked in Hinjilicut Branch,
Ganjam of the Management-Punjab National
Bank for more than 240 days in a calendar year, so the concerned workman was in continuous service in the Bank as
defined under section 25-B of the I.D. Act. Moreover, there is also evidence that the concerned workman was
terminated from her service with effect from 06.12.2017. Further, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the
concerned workman had been given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for his
termination/retrenchment or had been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days of average pay as per the provisions of
Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
30.
Hence, in view of the above discussions, this Tribunal finds and holds that Sri B. Santosh Kumar had worked
in Hinjilicut Branch, in the dist. of Ganjam of the Management-Bank as part time sweeper and he had been terminated
from service with effect from 06.12.2017. Further the action of the management in terminating the services of the
concerned workman with effect from 06.12.2017 is not legal and justified. Therefore, the concerned workman is
entitled for relief.
31.
Hence the Issue No. I & III are decided in favour of the 2nd party-workman.
6754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUE NO. IV
32.
After considering all the facts and circumstances it appears that about eight years have been elapsed after
termination of the concerned workman in the year 2017, so giving relief of reinstatement after long gap would not
serve any purpose.
33.
In view of such fact the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that it would be just, proper and reasonable to
Award lump-sum monetary compensation to the concerned workman in place of his claim of reinstatement and other
benefits.
34.
Hence, the management of Punjab National Bank, Hinjilicut Branch is directed to pay a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- (three lakhs) to the concerned work-woman as compensation. The dictates of the award shall be complied
with within two months from the date of publication of the award failing which the 1st Party-Management-Bank shall
also be liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum.
35.
Accordingly, this Issue is answered in favour of the 2nd Party-workman.
36.
This is the Award of the Tribunal.
37.
Office is directed to send the copy of the Award to the Ministry of Labour for publishing the Award in the
official gazette.
38.
Case record be consigned to record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1363.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(64/2018) izdkf”kr djrh g
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-63]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.64/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bhubaneswar 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)-63]
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. 64/2018
(Filed under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Date of Passing Award – 23rd January, 2026
Smt. Swarnalata Behera,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6755
D/o. Sudarshan Behera,
Near Trilochan U.P. School, P.O., Puri-2,
P.S. Kumbarapada, Dist. Puri.
…
Applicant-Workman.
-Vrs.-
1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Baliput Branch, Puri Sadar, Puri.
2. The Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Grand Road Branch, Hospital Square, Puri.
3. Circle Head, Punjab National Bank,
Bhubaneswar, 4th Floor, Deen Dayal Bhawan,
Janpath, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
4. The Zonal Manager, PNB House,
18-A, Brabourne Road, Kolkatta – 700 001.
…
Managements.
-Vrs.-
Smt. Swarnalata Behera,
D/o. Sudarshan Behera,
Near Trilochan U.P. School, P.O., Puri-2,
P.S. Kumbarapada, Dist. Puri.
…
2nd Party-Work Woman.
Appearances:-
Mr. Omm Prakash Rath, Advocate
… For the Applicant-Workman.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
… For the Managements.
ORDER
This is an application of applicant-workman filed under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein-
after referred as an ―Act‖).
2.
That, the case of the applicant work-woman Swarnalata Behera as per her statement of claim is as follows:-
That she was employed as a part time sweeper in the month of August since 2013 under the Management of
Punjab National Bank, Baliput Branch at Puri and thereafter at the management of PNB Grand Road, Puri on payment
of monthly wages through vouchers. She had requested to the Branch Manager of the Punjab National Bank to
regularize her service and she had been assured for that, but all of a sudden on 16.12.2017 she was told not to attend
the office without any notice. She had submitted a representation on 08.09.2017 mentioning therein that her
termination of service is not legal and without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act.
She had requested the Management to reinstate her services with continuity of service and back wages, but the
Management did not respond. She had completed 240 days of work in each calendar year and without any notice she
had been retrenched from service though her juniors were working in the Bank. She had raised the dispute before the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and after completion of 45 days of conciliation
proceeding she filed the claim petition under section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Tribunal.
A prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the Management of Punjab National Bank to reinstate
her in service with continuity of service and payment of back wages as her termination was illegal.
3.
The case of the 1st Party-Management of Punjab National Bank as per its written statement is as follows:-
That there was no ―employer and employee‖ relationship between the Punjab National Bank and the
applicant-work woman and she was not a permanent employee of the Bank. The claimant is not a work-woman under
section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and the alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute under section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. The
claimant has no right to be considered for regularization in any manner as per decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court
in several cases. The services of the claimant was utilized as a canteen girl or cook for some days as and when
required at the Branch Office of Baliput branch of the Bank and the canteen facilities are usually provided to
6756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the employees of the Punjab National Bank under a Staff Welfare Scheme. The affairs of the canteen are managed by
the employees of the concerned office/Branch Bank on cooperative basis or through independent agency under the
provisions of the committee. The services of the claimant was utilized at Punjab National Bank of Grand Road Puri
on stop gap arrangement as and when required for which she was paid daily. The amount of payment was deposited in
her Bank account once in a month and her last drawn earning of Rs. 5,648/- could not be said to be her monthly
remuneration. The claimant was not a permanent employee of the Bank and no appointment letter was issued to her,
so her name was not mentioned in the muster roll. The recruitment of the staff of the Punjab National Bank is done
after following due procedures. The claimant had never requested the management of Punjab National Bank for
regularization and no assurance was given to her in this regard. The claimant was not in permanent service of the
Management Bank so there is no question of her termination from service. The Management had no information
regarding the representation submitted by the claimant on 08.09.2017 for regularization of her services. The claimant
was not a permanent employee of the Bank so there is no question of any retrenchment or her termination by the
Management of Punjab National Bank. The claimant has not completed 240 days of continuous service in each
calendar year and no juniors of the claimant were working under the Management. The claimant had applied to the
post of part time sweeper but her candidature was rejected as she was over-aged.
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
1. Whether the application filed under section 2-A(2) of the I.D. (Amendment) Act, 2010 is maintainable?
2. Whether there exists any employer and employee relationship between the management of Punjab National
Bank, Baliput Branch, Puri and the disputant?
3. Whether the disputant Ms. Swarnalata Behera, is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act,
1947?
4. Whether the disputant Ms. Swaranalata Behera has worked for more than 240 days under the management of
Punjab National Bank, Baliput Branch, Puri in each calendar year she worked preceding her disengagement
by the management?
5. Whether the action of the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Baliput Branch, Puri in refusing employment of
Ms. Swaranalata Behera w.e.f. 16.12.2017 is legal and justified?
6. Whether the refusal of employment of the disputant Mr. Swarnalata Behera, by the management of Punjab
National Bank, Baliput Branch, Puri amounts to retrenchment.
7. What relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
The 2nd party-work woman has examined herself as W.W.-1. The 2nd Party-work woman has proved the
following documents which are marked as hereunder:-
Ext.-1 – Copy of the certificate issued by the R.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar dated 24.10.2018.
Ext.-2 – Original Bank Statement of the Management-Bank.
Ext.-3 Series are the xerox copies of the Certificates issued by the Branch Managers.
Ext.-4 – Xerox Copy of her representation to the General Manager of the Management Bank.
Ext.-5 Series are the xerox copies of vouchers issued by the Bank.
Ext.-6 – Xerox copy of her school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster.
Ext.-7 – Xerox copy of her residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar.
Ext.-8 – Xerox copies of her caster certificate issued by the Tahasildar.
Ext.-9 – Copy of news paper advertisement in the Prameya dated 4.11.2016 by the Management-Bank.
Ext.-10 – Original postal receipts.
7.
On the other-hand the 1st Party-Management has examined Sri Antaryami Senapati, Sr. Manager (HR)
Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bhubaneswar as M.W.-1.
8.
In course of their evidence the Management have proved the following documents which are marked as :-
Ext.-A – Xerox copy of the circular No. 182, dated 28.11.2003 of PNB HRD Division, New Delhi –
procedure for running of canteens in branches of PNB under staff welfare scheme.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6757
Ext.-B – Xerox copy of the extract of the circular No. 495, dated 26.03.2020 of PNB, HRD Division
regarding payment of canteen subsidy to the employees of the Management Bank working in different
offices/branches.
Ext.-C – Xerox copy of the circular letter No. 9/2014 of PNB Personal Administrative Division, Head
Office, regarding payment of emoluments/wages to outsider engaged in leave vacancy.
Ext.-D – Xerox copy of the extract copy of Prameya News Paper dated 04.11.2016 in token of advertisement
made by the Management Bank, Circle Office, Bhubaneswar inviting application for the post of part time
sweeper.
Ext.-E – Xerox copy of the papers showing recruitment of part time sweeper by the selection committee of
PNB Circle Office, Bhubaneswar showing eligible/ineligible candidates.
Ext.-F – Xerox copy of the appointment letter dated 30.10.2017 of Part Time Sweeper for Puri District.
FINDINGS
9.
For the sake of convenience the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss first of all Issue No. I, II and III.
ISSUE NO. I, II & III
10.
The learned lawyer of the work-woman has submitted that Smt. Swaranalata Behera was engaged by the
management of Punjab National Bank, Baliput Branch at Puri in the month of August, 2013 and subsequently at
Punjab National Bank, Grand Road Branch, Puri. He has also submitted that the concerned work-woman was paid
her wages through vouchers and she had continuously worked up till 16th December, 2017 when she was verbally
asked not to attend office. He has also submitted that the work-woman had requested the Branch Manager of the Bank
to regularize her services and she was assured of that but on 16.12.2017 she was terminated from her service.
11.
On the other-hand the learned lawyer for the Management-Bank has submitted that the services of the work-
woman was utilized as canteen girl as and when required at the Branch Office of Baliput Branch and canteen facilities
are usually provided to the employees of the Punjab National Bank under Staff Welfare Scheme. He has also
submitted that the services of the work-woman was utilized at Punjab National Bank, Grand Road, Puri on stop gap
arrangement as and when required for which she was paid her daily wages. He has further
argued that the amount of payment deposited in the account of the work-woman cannot be said to be her monthly
remuneration as she was not the permanent employee of the Bank. He has also submitted that the Management of
Punjab National Bank had not issued any appointment letter to her and her name was not mentioned in the muster
roll, so she was not the employee of the Bank.
12.
Now in the light of the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss oral and
documentary evidence of both the parties.
W.W-1 Smt. Swarnalata Behera has deposed that she had joined the services of Punjab National Bank at
Baliput Branch, Puri as Canteen Staff at daily rated employee in the month of August, 2013 as canteen staff, but she
used to help in other works in absence of the office sub-staff. She has also deposed that on 07.12.2015 she joined in
the Grand Road Branch, Puri as part-time sweeper till her termination from service and she was paid Rs. 5,648/- as
her last month wage. She has also deposed that the management-Bank had terminated her services without any notice
or charge-sheet. She has also deposed that she had requested the Management for regularization of her services, but
the same was turned down. She has proved certain documents which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-9.
In the cross examination she has stated that she was paid on daily wage basis while engaged in the canteen,
but the same was paid on monthly basis. She has also deposed that she has no knowledge who was the owner of the
canteen, but she was receiving her wages from the Branch Manager. She has also deposed that she was subsequently
engaged by the Manager of the Bank at Grand Road Branch, Puri as a part-time sweeper on regular basis. She has
also deposed that she was neither given any appointment letter nor her name was mentioned in the muster roll. She
has further stated that she had applied for the post of Part Time Sweeper as per the advertisement, but she had crossed
the
age limit, so her application was not taken into consideration. She has denied the suggestion that she had voluntarily
left her job at Baliput Branch, so she is not entitled for any relief. She has also denied the suggestion that she was
engaged temporarily on daily wage basis and she had not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
13.
On the other-hand the M.W.-1 Antaryami Senapati has deposed that the canteens in any branch of the Punjab
National Bank is an independent body of the bank Management as subsidies are provided to the employees of the
Bank from time to time by the Head Office under Staff Welfare Scheme. He has also deposed that the disputant
work-woman was engaged as canteen girl for cooking purposes on payment of daily wages and her services were
utilized for cooking purposes as and when required, so, the services of the work-workman from 2013 to 2015 cannot
6758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
be said to be under the management of Punjab National Bank. He has also deposed that the work woman was
temporarily engaged at Grand Road branch, Puri in December, 2015 as a part time Sweeper on stop gap arrangement.
He has also deposed that payment was made to the work-woman by the concerned Branch Manager through vouchers
for the days she worked. He has also deposed that the work-woman was paid her wages on monthly basis, but she was
paid daily wages, so, her wages vary from month to month. He has further stated that an advertisement was published
on 04.11.2016 for the post of Part-Time Sweeper for district wise vacancies of different categories, but there was no
vacancy for OBC candidates in the Bank. He has further deposed that the disputant work-woman had applied for the
said post, but her candidature was rejected as the post of Sweeper was reserved for Unreserved candidates. He has
also deposed that on the basis of an advertisement dated 04.11.2016 selection committee started the process of
recruitment and a sweeper was appointed to the post of Part-Time Sweeper. He had also stated that since a part time
sweeper was appointed, so the disputant
was asked not to report for her duty. He has proved certain documents which are as Ext.-A to Ext.-F.
In the cross examination he had stated that Bank had not issued any appointment letter to the work-workman,
but she was paid her wages at the end of the month. He has also deposed that the Bank had not received any
representation of the work-woman so there is no question of disposal of the said representation. He has further stated
that the work-workman had applied for the post of Sweeper as per the advertisement, but at that time she was over
aged, so she was not eligible for the appointment. He has also stated that the Branch Manager had recommended for
appointment of the workman on the post of Sweeper. He has further deposed that there was a recommendation from
the Branch Manager for her appointment to the post of Sweepers, but the Branch Manager was not the competent
authority to make such recommendation for appointment on any post. He has denied the fact that the Branch Manager
had not followed the principle of natural justice.
14.
Now coming to the documentary evidence of the workman, it appears that Ext.-1 is a certificate issued by the
Conciliation Officer, Ext.-2 is a copy of account ledger enquiry of work-woman, Ext.-3 is the certificate issued by the
Branch Manager, Ext.-4 Is the request letter of the work-woman to the General Manager and Executive Director of
the Punjab National Bank dated 04.09.2017 and 08.09.2017 respectively. Ext.-5 (three sheets) are the copies of the
payment of vouchers, Ext.-6 is the copy of the School Transfer Certificate, Ext.-7 is the copy of the resident
certificate, Ext.-8 is the copy of the certificate granted by Tahasildar in respect of her Caste Certificate, Ext.-9 is the
newspaper cutting of the advertisement and Ext.-10 is the original copy of the postal receipts.
15.
On the other-hand coming to the documentary evidence of the Management it appears that Ext.-A is the copy
of the circular of Welfare/Incentive Scheme of Punjab National Bank. Ext.-B is the copy of H.R.N.D
Circulars Ext.-C is the copy of the circular dated 11.09.2014 issued by Personal Administrative Division, Ext.-D is the
copy of the news-paper cutting of advertisement dated 04.11.2016, Ext.-E is the copy of the news-paper cutting.
16.
Now, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties the Tribunal finds that the 2nd
party work-woman was initially engaged at Baliput Branch, Punjab National Bank, Puri as a canteen staff but she
used to help other works in absence of office sub-staff. Further, the Tribunal also finds that the work-woman was
subsequently engaged as sweeper in Grand Road Branch of PNB, Puri since 07.12.2015.
17.
The Management has tried to establish that the work-woman was engaged as a Canteen Girl under the
Management of PNB, Baliput Branch and the Management affairs of the canteen are managed by the employees of
the concerned Branch, but the work-woman has categorically deposed that in absence of sub-staff she used to work in
their place. Moreover, in the Ext.-3 which is a certificate issued to the work-woman wherein it is mentioned that she
also helped in the Bank work whenever needed. However the Management of Punjab National Bank has not produced
any document showing engagement of work-woman as Canteen Girl.
18.
In view of the above discussion the Tribunals comes to a conclusion that the work woman was initially
working under the Baliput Branch of PNB from the month of August, 2013 and thereafter at Grand Road Branch, Puri
since 7th December, 2015.
19.
At this stage, it is important to mention here that the definition of workman has been mentioned U/s 2(s) of
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) which reads as follows:-
―workman‖ means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether
the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(j)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or
the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6759
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature
20.
At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a case as reported in 2011
LAB. I. C. 2799 (S.C) has been pleased to observe as follows:-
―14. It is apposite to observe that 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 a 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.
15.
Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability ground that the employee is not a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is
required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing
manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of
employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall
within the definition of ‗workman‖.
21.
It is required to mention here that the concerned work-woman namely Smt. Swaranalata Behera had worked
in the Punjab National Bank of Baliput Branch, Puri and Grand Road Branch, Puri as part time sweeper so she was
employed in the Bank on hire and consequently she is a ―workman‖ and there was a relationship between the
Management and her as ―employer and employee‖, so there is an industrial dispute.
22.
In view of such the Issue No. I, II & III are decided in favour of the 2nd party work-woman.
ISSUE NO. IV, V & VI.
23.
At the outset of discussions it is required to mention here that it has already been decided (supra) that the
work-woman namely Smt. Swarnalata Behera is a ―workman‖ discharging the work under the Punjab National Bank,
Baliput Branch and Grand Road Branch, Puri.
24.
The W.W.-1 in her evidence has categorically stated that she had worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year, however, the Management of Punjab National Bank has denied the same.
25.
In this regard it is proper to mention here that the Ext.-2 is an account ledger of the work-woman, Smt.
Swarnalata Behera regarding receiving of her payment of wages for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. After
examining the period of payment received by the work-woman from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 it appears that the
Management of Punjab National Bank has been regularly paid her wages from March, 2016 to March, 2017.
However, Ext.-5 series shows payments of wages through vouchers vide dated 14.12.2016, 02.03.2017 and
04.05.2017. All these account statement and payment vouchers issued by the Management-Bank show that the work-
woman had been in continuous service under the management-Bank till her termination on 16.12.2017 almost around
four years at Baliput Branch, and at Grand Road Branch, Puri.
26.
Since the work-woman had been paid wages for her services under the Management-Bank so considering the
payment of wages to her it can be safely held that she had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year under the
Management-Bank. Further the management has not produced any documents to show that the work-woman had not
worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year.
27.
Now it is an admitted position that the work-woman Smt. Swarnalata Behera was discharging her duties
under the management of Punjab National Bank and she had not been allowed to discharge her duties from
16.12.2017. On this point there is categorical evidence of the work-woman that she had been asked by the Branch
Manager not to attend office after 16.12.2017. However, the Management-Bank has tried to establish that there was
regular appointment of part-time Sweeper so her services were not required. In this regard it is relevant to mention
here that the concerned workman had been working under the Management-Bank and she had been asked not to
attend office from 16.12.2017 so it amounts to termination/retrenchment of her service without following the
provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
28.
At this stage It is relevant to mention here that the word ―retrenchment‖ has been defined under section 2(oo)
of the I.D. Act, The defination of continuous service has been mentioned under section 25-B of I.D. Act and the
Condition Precedent to Retrenchment have been mentioned under section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
6760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29.
The Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act reads as follows:-
Section 2(oo) -―retrenchment‖ means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does
not include-
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.
30.
The section 25-B of the I.D. Act reads as follows:-
25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose 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 authorized
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 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)…………………………………..
The Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows:-
25-F 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-
(d)
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:
(e)
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
(f)
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.)
31.
Now in this case there is categorical evidence that the concerned work-woman had worked in Baliput
Branch, Puri and Grand Road Branch Puri of the
Management-Punjab National Bank for more than 240 days in a calendar year, so the concerned workman was in
continuous service in the Bank as defined under section 25-B of the I.D. Act. Moreover, there is also evidence that
the concerned work-woman was terminated from her service with effect from 16.12.2017. Further, there is no
evidence before the Tribunal that the concerned work-woman had been given one month notice in writing indicating
the reasons for her termination/retrenchment or had been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days of average pay as
per the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
32.
Hence, in view of the above discussions, this Tribunal finds and holds that Smt. Swaranalata Behera had
worked in Baliput Branch, Puri and Grand Road Branch, Puri of the Management-Bank as part time sweeper and she
had been terminated from service with effect from 16.12.2017. Further the action of the management in terminating
the services of the concerned work-woman with effect from 16.12.2017 is not legal and justified. Therefore, the
concerned work-woman is entitled for relief.
33.
Hence the Issue No. IV, V and VI are decided in favour of the 2nd party-work-woman.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6761
ISSUE NO. VII
34.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that about eight years have been
elapsed after termination of the concerned work-woman in the year 2017, so giving relief of reinstatement after long
gap would not serve any purpose.
35.
In view of such fact the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that it would be just, proper and reasonable to
Award lump-sum monetary compensation to the concerned work-woman in place of her claim of reinstatement and
other benefits.
36.
Hence, the 1st Party-Management of Punjab National Bank, Baliput Branch is directed to pay a sum of Rs.
3,00,000 (three lakhs) to the concerned work-woman as compensation. The dictates of the award shall be complied
with within two months
from the date of publication of the award failing which the 1st Party-Management-Bank shall also be liable to pay
interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum.
37.
Accordingly, this Issue is answered in favour of the 2nd Party-Work-woman.
38.
This is the Award of the Tribunal.
39.
Office is directed to send the copy of the Award to the Ministry of Labour for publishing the Award in the
official gazette.
40.
Case record be consigned to record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Sri DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1364.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ससजडकेट बैंक/केनरा बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(32/2022) izdkf”kr djrh g
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-64]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.32/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank/Canara Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR (B-II)-64]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR
CGIT/LC/R/32/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Rameshwar Verma
S/o. Shri Babulal Verma,
Resident of 37, Bargundo Ka Vass,
Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh)-457 001.
Workman
Versues
6762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Mukhya Prabhand Nideshak,
Syndicate Bank/Canara Bank,
Corporate Office, Gandhi Nagar,
HOLB Bangalore - 560 009
(Bengaluru) - Karnataka.
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of April, 2026)
As per letter dated 29.06.2022 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. J-
1(1-4)/2022-IR dt 29.06.2022. The dispute under reference relates to:
"क्या श्री रामेश्वर वमास कमसकार को मैससस ससंडीकेट बैंक / केनरा बैंक व्दारा आवेदक को काम से
सनकाला जाना न्यायोसचत ै ? यसद न ीं, तो उक्त कमसकार को कब से और सकन लाभों के साथ नौकरी
पर प नः ब ाल सकया जाना चास ए ?"
According to the workman, he was initially engaged by the then Syndicate Bank in Station Road Branch,
Ratlam on 111.12.1997 on the post of P.T.S. and worked more than 08 hours everyday. He used to do the work of
cleaning, filing water, serving of water to the customers, setting ledger, preparing and sewing vouchers, counting cash
from machine and repairing their bundles, distributing cheque and letters, thus he worked as a Peon and as a
Messenger in the Bank with at most honesty, sincerity and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors for more than 22
years till 14.08.2020. The Syndicate Bank merged itself into Canara Bank as per notification issued by the
Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance on 04.03.2020, published in the Gazette of India on
04.03.2020 and came into effect from 01.04.2020, thereafter all the assets and liabilities of the transferee Bank i.e. the
Syndicate Bank including the staff as well claims and liabilities merged with and were taken over by the transferor
Bank which is the Canara Bank.
The Management of Canara Bank dispensed with services of the workman from 14.08.2020 under an oral
when the workman raised his demand with respect to permanency of service and status. This disengagement was in
violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act because the workman had worked for 22 years continuously in the Bank
for more than 240 days in every year. He was disengaged without any enquiry under oral orders, which amounts to
retrenchment and is illegal because no notice or compensation was given to him. He raised a dispute in this respect
before Regional Labour Commissioner, Bhopal, after failure of conciliation, the reference.
The workman has further alleged that, this action of Management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He has
prayed that he be held to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
The case of Management Bank is mainly that, the allegations are false, the workman was not recruited
against any vacancy following recruitment process rather he was a daily wager who was engaged on as and when
required basis and was disengaged by the Management Bank. It is further the case of Bank that cleaning, dusting and
general keep up of branch are done by the permanent housekeepers cum peons, who also discharge the duties of sub-
staff within normal working hours in the erstwhile, Syndicate Bank, the sub-ordinate staff including Attenders, Part-
time Sweepers, which are permanent posts.
The Bank has formed district wise list of candidates, for temporary employment of temporary
Attenders/Part-time sweeper in leave vacancies and they were engaged on as and when required basis in the
Branches. The workman was found indulged in various misconducts namely misbehaving with the staff and
customers, hence was disengaged, thus according to Bank, the disengagement of the workman is not in violation of
the Act. The Management has requested that the reference be answered against the Workman.
The Workman filed its rejoinder, in which he has mainly reiterated his allegations.
In evidence, the Workman filed and proved lists sent by Manager, Syndicate Bank to Deputy Manager of the
Bank on 01.08.2012 along with Annexure containing details of the workman, Annexure containing details of
candidates in temporary Attender/PTS panel, statement of engagement of temporary Attenders/PTS panel both dated
16.10.2015, details of the Workman and counter signed by the Branch Manager collectively marked as Exhibit W-1.
Exhibit W-2 is the list with respect to details of Temporary PTS working against permanent/clear vacancies from
outside the panel as on 15.10.2010, marked as Exhibit W-5, Ex. W-2 is the certificate issued by the Branch Manager
on 28.06.2016 certifying that the Workman is working as PTS on temporary basis/daily wager basis since 2010.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6763
Exhibit W-3 is another certificate dated 21.11.2017 issued by the Branch Manager containing details of appointment
of the Workman. Exhibit W-4 is the identity card, Exhibit W-6 is the Bank certified statement which is in 16 pages.
The Workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the
Management Bank.
Management Bank has not filed affidavit of any of its witness. They have not filed nor have proved any
document.
It is further to mention here that, service of Panel Advocate Mr. Praveen Yadav were provided by this
Tribunal from the list of Advocates in Panel in this Tribunal for legal services and provided by State Legal Service
Authorities of M.P.
I have heard argument of Learned Panel Counsel Mr. Praveen Yadav and Mr. Jaydeep Bansal Learned
Counsel for Bank. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issue arise for determination in the case in
hand.
1. Whether, the Workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for more than 240 days
in a year right from 11.12.1997 to 14.08.2020?
2. Whether, the disengagement of the Workman is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act?
3. Subject to findings on Issue No.1 and No.2, the relief to which the workman be entitled to?
Before proceeding, Section 25B of the Act requires to be mentioned here and 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 authorized
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.
The case of the Workman is that, he worked as a daily wager Peon/Messenger/Cleaner, with the
Station Road Branch of the Bank in Ratlam since 11.12.1997 till 14.08.2020 continuously. He has stated this
fact in his affidavit which he filed as his examination in chief.
He has stated that, he was first appointed as part-time Sweeper in the Branch on 11.12.1997. He
worked at least 08 hours a day, his job was cleaning of the Branch, counting cash, setting ledger, sewing
vouchers, carrying cheques and documents, his work was recorded in the Peon book maintained by the Bank.
He then states that he was paid his wages through his S.B. Account in the Bank and worked continuously for
22 years. He also states that, vide Circular of the Bank dated 16.10.2015, application were notified for
absorption/regularization of Temporary PTS. He had provided his service particulars to the Manager. The
Manager had sent his service particulars to the Regional Office. His name is there at Serial No. 36 in the list.
He has also stated that he has filed and proved certificate dated 01.08.2012, another certificate dated
21.11.2017 issued by the Bank Officers in support of this statement. In his cross-examination by the Bank,
the Workman stated that, he is working since 1997, he was not issued a permanent appointment, he was first
appointed on place of peon who was transferred and continued to work on his place. He was selected from
6764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
among three or four people, he worked for 300 days in every year. He was paid his wages through his Bank
Account.
Exhibit W-01 is the Letter sent by the Branch Manager to the Deputy General Manager along with
representation of the Workman. Letter dated 01/08/2012, states that he was working since November, 2011
and sought empanelment of his name in the panel. The Manager has answered Annexure 4 and 5 are
certificate that the Workman has been working since 1997 and had worked for 800 days. Annexure 2 is the
details of Temporary PTS working in against permanent/clear vacancy from outside the panel, if any as on
15.10.2017 paper of the Branch Bank Officer which contains as many as 40 names, the name of the
workman is mentioned at Serial No. 36 of the list. This document Exhibit W-5 also corroborates his above
related statement. It is further corroborated by the two certificates dated 28.06.2016 and 21.11.2017. In
absence of any evidence to the condition press by Management Bank, the allegations of the workman on this
issue are held proved. Accordingly, it is held that, the workman has proved his continuous engagement
under Section 25B of the Act from 1997 to 14.08.2020.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2 –
Management has taken a case that, since workman was a daily wager and was not recruited through
any recruitment process, his disengagement is in violation of the Act. Learned Counsel also submits that,
complaints of misbehavior by the Workman were also received by the Bank. In absence of any evidence, the
case of the workman to suggest that there were complaints of misbehaviour by the Workman are held not
proved. Undisputedly, no notice or compensation was given at his disengagement hence the disengagement
of the workman is held in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act, which are 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 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3 –
Learned Counsel for the Workman has submitted that since workman was a daily wager and was
not recruited following recruitment process, he cannot claim to be reinstated or regularized. Learned Counsel
for Workman has submitted that this is the case of practicing unfair labour practice by the Management
Bank, the Workman had worked continuously for about 22 years with the Bank, there have been instances
where the daily wagers who were first engaged as a part-time workers/subordinate staff were granted
permanent status and regularized. Learned Counsel further submits that, the appointment of the workman
might be irregular, but not illegal.
In the case in hand, the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for about 22
years by way of engaging the Workman as a temporary or badli workman or contract labour for as many as
22 years, the Management is held to have adopted unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read
with Schedule V of the Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(U) and 25(T) of the Act. These provisions
are being reproduced as follows -
Section 2(ra) of the Act defines unfair labour practice, which is being reproduced as follows –
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6765
2(ra) “unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
THE FIFTH SCHEDULE See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES I.—On the part of employers and
trade unions of employers
1………………….
10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with
the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.
11. …………………
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered
under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.
25U. Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair labour practice
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees or with both.
Following paragraphs of the judgment referred Sudarshan Rajpoot v/s U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation (2015) II, SCC 317 which are being reproduced as follows:-
. “In view of Schedule V, Item 10 of the ID Act, 1947 the respondent Corporation is prohibited from engaging the
appellant workman as a badli, casual or temporary workman to work on permanent basis. The fact that he had been
continuously working for more than 3 years and he had rendered more than 240 days of service as the driver in a
calendar year until his termination order and yet he is being engaged on a contractual basis in the respondent
Corporation is statutorily prohibited. The same amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra)
read with Section 25-T, which action of the Corporation is punishable under Section 25-U of the ID Act. This legal
position is settled by this Court in Chief Conservator of Forests case [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath
Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 302-03,
para 22)
“22. … In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned
in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state
that the present was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen
who went to the Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals
for long years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent employees inasmuch as giving
of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered, that the Pachgaon
Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace,
which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-
pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on the increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency
is thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on
casual basis for years the object manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the second
question also against the appellants.”
25. This Court in the later judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India [Hari Nandan
Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , after adverting to the law laid down
in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh [(2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] and Maharashtra
SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
513] wherein Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is adverted
to in both the cases, held that on a harmonious reading of the two judgments, even when there are posts available,
in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court cannot give direction for regularisation only because a
worker has continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, such a direction
cannot be given when the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per
the recruitment rules:
25.1. It was held at para 32 in Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India,
(2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] as under : (SCC p. 211)
“32. However, the Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] found that the factual position was different
in the case before it. Here the post of cleaners in the establishment were in existence. Further, there was a
finding of fact recorded that the Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practice by engaging these workers
6766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on temporary/casual/daily-wage basis and paying them paltry amount even when they were discharging duties
of eight hours a day and performing the same duties as that of regular employees.”
25.2. Further, Hari Nandan Prasad [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2
SCC (L&S) 408] referred at para 36, LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] in
which the relevant para 22 of LIC case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] is extracted as
under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213)
“36. … ‘22. The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure which seeks to pre-empt industrial tensions,
provide the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the energies of the
partners in production may not be dissipated in counterproductive battles and the assurance of industrial justice
may create a climate of goodwill.’ (D.J. Bahadur case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR
1083] , SCC p. 334, per Krishna Iyer, J.)
In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals are given wide powers not
only to enforce the rights but even to create new rights, with the underlying objective to achieve social justice.
Way back in the year 1950 i.e. immediately after the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, in one of its first
and celebrated judgment in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees [1950 SCC 470 : AIR 1950 SC 188 : 1950 LLJ 921 at p.
948] this aspect was highlighted by the Court observing as under : (AIR p. 209, para 61)
‘61. … In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is
not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either
party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing
agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the
parties. It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping
industrial peace.’”
25.3. And again at para 37, observing that the aforesaid sweeping power conferred upon the Tribunal is not
unbridled and is circumscribed by this Court in New Maneck Chowk Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. Textile Labour Assn. [AIR
1961 SC 867] , the relevant para 6 of which is extracted as under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan
Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213, paras 37-38)
“37. … ‘6. … This, however, does not mean that an Industrial Court can do anything and everything when
dealing with an industrial dispute. This power is conditioned by the subject-matter with which it is dealing and
also by the existing industrial law and it would not be open to it while dealing with a particular matter before it
to overlook the industrial law relating to that matter as laid down by the legislature or by this Court.’ (Textile
Labour Assn. case [AIR 1961 SC 867] , AIR p. 870)
38. It is, thus, this fine balancing which is required to be achieved while adjudicating a particular dispute,
keeping in mind that the industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principle of fair play and
justice.”
26. In view of the aforesaid statement of law laid down by this Court after adverting to the powers of the
Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court as interpreted by this Court in the earlier decisions referred to supra, the
said principle is aptly applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court
recorded a finding of fact in favour of the workman that the termination of services of the appellant herein is not
legal and valid and further reaffirmed the said finding and also clearly held that the plea taken in the order of
termination that he was appointed on contract basis as a driver is not proved by producing cogent evidence. Further,
we hold that even if the plea of the employer is accepted, extracting work though of permanent nature continuously
for more than three years, the alleged employment on contract basis is wholly impermissible. Therefore, we have
held that it amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Section
25-T which is prohibited under Section 25-U, Chapter V-C of the ID Act, 1947. We have to hold that the judgment of
the High Court in reversing the award is not legal and the same is set aside by us.
23. Further, the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court on Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] by the High Court to reverse the finding of fact
recorded in the award in favour of the workman in answering the points of dispute in the negative, is not tenable in
law in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2
SCC (L&S) 513] , wherein, this Court after adverting to Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] at para 36, has held that the said case
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6767
“does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section
32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been
working exist”. (SCC p. 574)
Further, this Court held that : (SCC p. 574, para 36)
“36. … Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be
held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under
Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of
Schedule IV is established.”
Reference may be taken of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v/s Union of India
reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 , the relevant paragraphs of this judgment are being reproduced as follows:-
“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,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and 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. ………
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 to
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 Termination:- Temporary 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 a Shield:- Institutions increasingly resort to 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.”
The principle laid down in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has been followed by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024 (2025 INSC 144). The relevant portion of
the said judgment is being reproduced as follows:-
“12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant
Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer‟s municipal functions specifically the upkeep of
parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or
project-based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long
serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. By requiring the same tasks
(planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating
them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice.
The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded
when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing
6768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
assignments under the Employer‟s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual
engagements.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However,
as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are
“irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi
cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking
legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor based arrangement and a consistent need
for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite
daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‟s
failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
“temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer‟s inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably,
this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain
status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed
to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation
evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer‟s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential,
perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and
compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory
obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of
workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The impugned order of
the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity
or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:-
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen‟s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E
and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in
service from thereof their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin
to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of
absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all
consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages
from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the
aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such
duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure
these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”
The following observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh V.s. State of U.P. SLP No.
8558/2018 are being reproduced as follows –
“ Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non
suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass
the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State‟s arbitrary refusals to sanction
posts despite the employer‟s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6769
workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular
engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent
and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of
India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi
(Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of
outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Civil
Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 9 parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles
articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been
reproduced hereunder:
“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such
absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are
“illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain
conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements
persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows
no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged
asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued
unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several Civil
Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 10 years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows
an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed
summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done
by a recent judgment of this court in in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:
“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 Civil Appeal No.
8558 of 2018 11 characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and 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. ………
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 to
employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 12 •
As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield
to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial.
The Commission‟s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by
virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 15
protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to
the State‟s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a
proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had
not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ
petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during
pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe
that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State‟s stance in refusing sanction, whether in
1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division
Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal
challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical
enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the Civil Appeal No.
8558 of 2018 16 State‟s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
6770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The State‟s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission‟s
proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are
held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
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 Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 17 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 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.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect
Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 18 from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh
recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants.
For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission)
shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant
shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn
wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay
grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between
(a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and
(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death,
as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be Civil Appeal No. 8558 of
2018 19 so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount
shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect
from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of
pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three
months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of
death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this
Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent
authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. Civil
Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 20 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case,
orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily
wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands
imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is
held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a
budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these
obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and
dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6771
designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 21 grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In the light of aforesaid proposition of law, keeping in view the fact that the workman has put in about 22
years with the Management in their service, he is held entitled to be reinstated with 50% back wages and to be
considered for granting permanent status and regularization.
Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
In the above discussion the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
The action of Management Bank in terminating the services of Workman Rameshwar Verma is held against
law. The workman is held entitled to be reinstated with 50% back wages and to be considered for granting
permanent status and regularization.
The Management Bank is directed to reinstate the workman Rameshwar Verma with 50% back wages,
payable to him within 90 days from the date of Award, failing which interest @6% per annum from date of
Award till payment.
The Management Bank is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for granting permanent status
and regularization of the Workman within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that
he has performed perennial duties. In assessing regularization, the Management shall not impose educational or
procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Applicant Workman or to similarly
situated regular employees in the past. The Management Bank shall expedite all necessary administrative processes
to ensure that such type of workmen are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.”
No order as to cost.
DATE:-23/04/2026
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1365.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(06/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-65]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their
workmen.
L-39025/01/2026- IR (B-II)-65
[No. L-39025/01/2026-IR(B-II)-65]
SALONI, Dy. Director
6772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/06/2024
Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)
Ankit Sen,
S/o Ashok Kumar Sen,
Aged about 27 years, R/o Village Dhanpuri,
Police Station Barela,
Tehsil and District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.
Workman
Versues
1. Regional Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Wright Town Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. Branch Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Branch- Gorakhpur Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Chief Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra Head Office,
Lok Mangal-1501, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune (Maharashtra)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 16th day of April, 2026)
The Workman has filed the petition under Section 2A (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
amended by Amendment Act, 2010 (in short the ‗Act‘) with the case that he worked as a Temporary Daily Wager
with the Bank from 09.03.2021 to 02.10.2023 for more than 240 days in every year. His services were terminated by
Bank without notice or compensation, which is bad in law. He raised a dispute within 03 years, which could not be
conciliated, hence this petition. He has requested that he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
Case of the Management Bank in their written statement is that, he was a part-time daily wager, who never
worked whole day and never completed 240 days in any year, hence his disengagement does not violate in law. Bank
has requested that his petition be dismissed.
No evidence was adduced by any of the parties.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Jaydeep Bansal for the Workman. None appeared from the
side of Bank for argument also.
I have gone through the record as well.
The initial burden to prove his case is on the petitioner. He has not adduced any evidence in form of
affidavit nor has he proved any document, hence holding his case not proved, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Petition dismissed.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 16/04/2026
P.K.SRIVASTAVA), Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6773
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1366.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(07/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-66]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and
their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR (B-II)-66]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/07/2024
Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)
Amar Chohtel, S/o Deepak Chohtel
Aged about 27 years,
R/o Helatganj Cantonment Ward,
Sadar Bazaar, Jabalpur, M.P.
Workman
Versues
1. Regional Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Wright Town Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. Branch Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Branch- Gorakhpur Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Chief Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra Head Office,
Lok Mangal-1501, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune (Maharashtra)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 16th day of April, 2026)
The Workman has filed the petition under Section 2A (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
amended by Amendment Act, 2010 (in short the ‗Act‘) with the case that he worked as a Temporary Daily Wager
with the Bank from 04.12.2020 to 06.11.2023 for more than 240 days in every year. His services were terminated by
Bank without notice or compensation, which is bad in law. He raised a dispute within 03 years, which could not be
conciliated, hence this petition. He has requested that he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
6774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Case of the Management Bank in their written statement is that, he was a part-time daily wager who never
worked whole day and never completed 240 days in any year, hence his disengagement does not violate in law. Bank
has requested that his petition be dismissed.
No evidence was adduced by any of the parties.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Jaydeep Bansal for the Workman. None appeared from the
side of Bank for argument also.
I have gone through the record as well.
The initial burden to prove his case is on the petitioner. He has not adduced any evidence in form of
affidavit nor has he proved any document, hence holding his case not proved, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Petition dismissed.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 16/04/2026
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1367.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj कमांडेंट, महार रेजजमेंटल सेंटर, सागर, मध्य प्रदेि ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds
deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (55/2016, 56/2016, 57/2016, 58/2016, 59/2016, 60/2016, 61/2016,
62/2016, 63/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. एल-14012/04/2016- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026
S.O. 1367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 55/2016, 56/2016, 57/2016, 58/2016, 59/2016, 60/2016, 61/2016,
62/2016, 63/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of The Commandant Mahar Regimental Center Sagar M.P and their
workmen.
[No. L-14012/04/2016- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR
1.CGIT/LC/R/55/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Anil Sen
S/o Moti Lal Sen, R/o Motinagar,
Ward No.25, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6775
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
…….(Leading Case…)
With 2. CGIT/LC/R/56/2016
Shri Jitendra Sen
S/o Shri Thikaram Sen,
R/o Village Ranipura, Semrahat,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
3. CGIT/LC/R/57/2016
Shafeeq
S/o Mohd. Rajjaq,
R/o Bhainsa Naka, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
4.CGIT/LC/R/58/2016
Sh. Kamlesh Sen
S/o Gopal Sen, 6, Aafatganj,
Hardoula Chabutra Gali,
Teh-Sagar, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
6776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
5.CGIT/LC/R/59/2016
Sh. Motilal Sen
S/o Gulabchand Sen, R/o Ward No.25,
Motinagar Ward, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
6.CGIT/LC/R/60/2016
Sh Pran Singh Sen
S/o Hazarilal Sen, R/o Ranipura,
Semrahat, Sagar, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
7.CGIT/LC/R/61/2016
Sh. Sunil Sen S/o Motilal Sen,
R/o Near Himmatbhai Namkeen Wala,
Bahubali Colony, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6777
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
8.CGIT/LC/R/62/2016
Sh. Sandeep Sen
S/o Motilal Sen, R/o Bhandari Road No.3,
Moti Nagar, Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Management
9.CGIT/LC/R/63/2016
Sh. Pappu Sen
S/o Balram Sen, R/o 8,
Behind Police Line, Laxmipura Ward,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
Workman
Versues
1. The Commandant,
Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar (M.P)-470001
2. Karyavahak Station Staff Adhikari
Administrative Officer,
First Class, Station Headquarter,
Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) 470001
3. M/s Talwar & Co.,
Through! Its proprietor
Mrs. Shobhana Talwar,
R/o 5/21, Sadar Baazar Sagar (MP)
Managemen
6778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 24th day of April, 2026)
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No.
L-14012/04/2016 (IR(DU)) dt 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1. Whether Anil Sen S/o Motilal Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar for
the last 5 year is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If not to what
relief the workman is entitled?
2. "Whether Anil Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not and
Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to what
relief the workman is entitled to?
3. Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Anil Sen amounted to unfair labour Practice
or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In case No. R/56/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No.
L-14012/05/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1.Whether Sh. Jitendra Sen S/o Thikaram Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar for the last 3 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If
not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. 'Whether Sh. Jitendra Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not
and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. 'Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Jitendra Sen amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to‖
In case No. R/57/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No
L-14012/06/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1.Whether Sh. Shafeeq S/o Mohd. Rajjaq, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar
for t for the last 30 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If
not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. 'Whether Sh. Shafeeq is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not and
Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to what
relief the workman is entitled to?
3. 'Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Sh. Shafeeq amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
In case No. R/58/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No.
L-14012/07/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6779
―1.Whether Sh. Kamlesh Sen S/o Gopal Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar for the last 20 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If
not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. Whether Sh. Kamlesh Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not
and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. 'Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Sh. Kamlesh Sen amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
In case No. R/59/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No. L-
14012/08/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―Whether Sh. Motilal Sen S/o Gulabchand Sen, who is is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental
Centre, Sagar for the last 30 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or
not? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. 'Whether Sh. Motilal Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not
and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. Whether the action of the Mahar, Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Sh. Motilal Sen amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
In case No. R/60/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No. L-
14012/09/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1.Whether Sh. Pran Singh Sen S/o Hazarilal Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental
Centre, Sagar for the last 15years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or
not? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. 'Whether Sh. Pran Singh Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or
not and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham
to what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Sh. Pran Singh Sen amounted to unfair
labour Practice or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
In case No. R/61/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No.
L-14012/10/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1.Whether Sh. Sunil Sen S/o Motilal Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar
for the tast 10 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If not to
what relief the workman is entitled.
2. Whether Sh. Sunil Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not
and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
6780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barber without regularizing the services of Sh. Sunil Sen amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
In case No. R/62/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No. L-
14012/11/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1.Whether Sh. Sandeep Sen S/o Motilal Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar for the last 5 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If
not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. Whether Sh. Sandeep Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not
and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to
what relief the workman is entitled to?"
3. "Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Sh. Sandeep Sen amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
In case No. R/63/2016 –
As per letter dated 02.06.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No. L-
14012/12/2016 (IR(DU)) dt 02.06.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―1. Whether Shri Pappu Sen S/o Sh. Balram Sen, who is working as Barber in Mahar Regimental Centre,
Sagar for the last 20 years is entitled for regularization with Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar as Barber or not? If
not to what relief the workman is entitled."
2. Whether Shri Pappu Sen is working as Barber under Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar directly or not
and Whether the contract labour system existing at present with M/s Talwar & Co. is sham or not? If it is sham to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. 'Whether the action of the Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar in publishing paper advertisement and
trying to recruit regular Barbers without regularizing the services of Shri Pappu Sen amounted to unfair labour
Practice or not? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Since, the disputes, the facts and evidence in all cases were identical, hence after hearing arguments, these
cases are being disposed by common Judgment and Award.
The case of the Workmen in these cases is mainly that, they have been working as a Barber in the Office of
Brigadier Mahar Regimental Centre, Sagar, and have experience as well expertise in the field for the past many years,
details of their engagement tenure produced in tabular form. They also received appreciation for their work, have been
getting remuneration of Rs. 2200/- per month and have worked more than 240 days in every single calendar year, thus
have earned status of a permanent employee under the Act. They have been issued gate passes by the Office of the
Brigadier, their records are maintained in the Office of Management No.1 i.e. the Brigadier of the Regimental Centre.
They are entitled to be granted permanent status and regularization of their service. They preferred representation in
this respect before the Appropriate Authority and were granted liberty to approach the Office of Management No.1
i.e. the Office of the Brigadier of the Regimental Centre. They did prefer a representation to the Office of the
Brigadier of the Regimental Centre, seeking permanent status and regularization of their services which is not yet
been granted.
The Management No.1 (Brigadier Mahar Regimentalal Centre) came up with an advertisement dated
29.08.2015 for fresh recruitment of Barbers, with age bar between 18 to 25 years and educational qualification
Matriculation passed, no preference or relaxation was given to the Applicant Workmen in the advertisement. They
preferred a representation dated 10.09.2015 to the various Authorities. They also raised a dispute before the Deputy
Chief Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur under Section 12 of the Act. During the conciliation proceedings, the
Management appeared but no conciliation could be reached at, hence, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner sent a
failure of conciliation report to the Ministry. It is further the case of the Applicants that in the meanwhile, the
Management No.1 i.e. the Office of Brigadier of Regimental Centre prevented the applicants from entering their
premises and applicants were restrained from discharging their duties as a Barber. They preferred an application under
Section 33(1) of the Act before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner on 25.01.2016. Notice was issued to the
Management on 25.01.2016. One M/s Talwar & Company appeared in response to the notice and stated that the work
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6781
was stopped from 21.01.2026 to 28.01.2016 due to Republic Day arrangements and thereafter the applicants could
immediately join back to the service. The Applicants were allowed to work from 03.02.2016 to 01.04.2016 as Barbers
but, were again discharged though the matter was pending adjudication. It is thereafter, the Applicants approach
Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. by way of filing the Writ Petition No. 8757/2016 which was decided by Hon‘ble High
Court, the applicants were directed to approach the Tribunal and Government was directed to sent a reference with
respect to the dispute to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the reference was sent by the Government to the Tribunal.
According to the Workmen, due to working continuously for so many years detail mentioned in tabular form
–
S.No.
Name
of
the
workmen
Age of the workmen at
the
time
of
disengagement
No. of years the workmen
worked
with
Management at the time
of disengagement
Posts
on
which
the
applicant workmen were
working with Management
1.
Anil Sen
23 years
08 years
Barber
2.
Jitendra
23 years
06 years
Barber
3.
Shafeeq
45 years
25 years
Barber
4.
Kamlesh
35 years
20 years
Barber
5.
Motilal
50 years
34 years
Barber
6.
Pran Singh
32 years
15 years
Barber
7.
Sunil Sen
29 years
11 years
Barber
8.
Sandeep
22 years
06 years
Barber
9.
Pappu
42 years
25 years
Barber
They have matured their right to permanent status and that of regular employee which has been denied to
them by Management. There is no academic or professional qualification required nor is there any curriculum for the
job of Barber, conducted by any Authority and they have got the professional skill of Barbers by way of experience
and expertise. According to the Applicants, this action of Management in refusing them permanent status and
regularization is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice. They have requested that the
Management No.1 i.e. the Office of the Brigadier of the Regimental Centre be directed to regularize their services
and grant them wages as per scale, alternatively, they be granted preference in the recruitment process of regular/fresh
appointment of Barbers in the Office of Management No.1.
Management No.1 has filed written statement on their behalf Station Staff Officer of the Station
Headquarter Regimental Centre in which they have pleaded that these applicants were in fact employed by M/s
Talwar & Company, who has been providing hair cutting services to the personnel of Mahar Regimental Centre on
monthly or yearly basis. The Regimental Centre is authorized civilian barbers based on Army Instruction No. 124/63
and Army Instruction No. 186/66, there was 100% deficiency of Barbers in the Centre. Outsourcing of essential
services was contractual agreement on yearly basis by way of tender, the payment was calculated by multiplying
number of trainees and permanent staff at the rate amount fixed with the Contractor for providing hair cutting services
to one trainee per month. The bills were raised by Contractor and were paid by the Controller of Defense Account at
Jabalpur on monthly basis. The Mahar Regimental Centre is not aware about the details of the duration of
employment of these Barbers or wages paid to them by the Contractor, because the Regimental Centre is not their
employer rather they have been employed by the Contractor M/s Talwar & Company who can verify about the
employment and payments. This system of outsourcing was stopped by Controller of Defense Accounts, Jabalpur
vide their DO dated 18.02.2015, hence case for continuation of outsourcing of essential services was taken up with
Integrated Financial Authority by the Regimental Centre vide letter dated 18.03.2015 which was not sanctioned.
Thereafter, on the request of the Regimental Centre, the Headquarter released vacancies of civil tradesman employees
for direct recruitment, in which the post of Barbers were also included. The recruitment process for the post of
Barbers was carried out in September/October, 2015. The vacancies were published in newspapers, the applicants
who were employed by the Contractor M/s Talwar & Company were also granted opportunity to participate in the
recruitment process. Some of them did apply for that, but many of them did not meet the criteria of age as well
educational qualification mentioned in the recruitment Rules, hence were rejected. Two were selected and are
presently employed as Barbers in the Regimental Centre. It is further the case of the Management that, after the
Controller of the Defense Accounts, Jabalpur stopped payment for outsourcing of hair cutting services, w.e.f.
01.04.2015 there was considerable gap from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, before the Barbers from direct recruitment
were made available to the Regimental Centre in this circumstance, in order to ensure discipline, hygiene and
sanitation standard of the troops, the Regimental Centre entered into a private contract agreement with M/s Talwar
and Company for hair cutting w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. Payments for these services were made by the regular
staff from their own pockets which were reimbursed by the Regimental Centre. Meanwhile, the 08 barbers including
the sons of two Applicant Workmen joined the Center and this system was also done away from 01.04.2016.Thus
according to Management, there is never been any relationship of employer and employee between the Regimental
Centre and the Applicant Workmen. Hence, there is no question of their disengagement by the Regimental Centre, the
Management of Regimental Centre has prayed that reference be answered against the applicant workmen.
6782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
During the course of proceedings, the Contractor M/s Talwar & Company were also impleaded party after
impleadment, notices were sent to them but in spite of service of notices on them, they did not appear and did not file
any written statement.
The Applicants filed rejoinder in which they stated that, the so called agreements between the Contractors
and the Regimental Centre are sham and camouflage adopted by the Regimental Centre just to deny the claims of
these Applicant Workmen. In fact, the salary was paid by the Regimental Centre and not by the Contractor. The
Applicants worked under the instructions and control as well supervision of the officers of Regimental Centre in their
campus. In fact, the Applicant Workmen have been working under the supervision, control and instructions of the
Regimental Centre and the so called outsourcing agreements are in fact sham, the works they have discharged are
integral to the Centre activities and are of permanent and perennial nature. The Regimental Centre has adopted unfair
labour practice by way of engaging Workers on contract for years and years on the job of permanent nature which is
prohibited in law. Management cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own misdeeds.
In all these cases, the workmen have filed their affidavits as their examination in chief, they have been
cross-examined by the Management of Regimental Centre. The Regimental Centre has also filed affidavit of its
witness as their examination in chief. He has also been cross-examined by the workmen. Both the sides have filed and
proved documents, to be referred to as and when required.
I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel for the Applicant Workmen Mr. Rohan Harne assisted by Mr.
Dhananjay Srivastava Learned Counsel and Mr. Gajendra Singh Chauhan Learned Counsel for Management of
Regimental Centre.
As stated earlier, the Contractor M/s Talwar & Company has not contested the case. They never appeared in
spite of the service. They did not file any pleading. The Management of Regimental Centre has filed written
submissions also which are part of the record. I have gone through the Written Submissions as well the record.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination –
1. Whether, the Regimental Centre is an Industry under Section 2(j) of the Act for the purpose?
2. Whether, the Outsourcing agreements regarding to outsourcing of services of Barbers to Contractors as
pleaded by the Regimental Centre, are sham and camouflage, just to deny the legal admissible claims of
the Applicant Workmen with respect to permanency of status and regularization?
3. Whether, the Management of Regimental Centre has adopted unfair labour practice in the case in hand?
4. Subject to findings on issue No. 1 and 2, whether the workmen are entitled to any relief claimed?
Issue No. 1 –
Learned Counsel for the Management has submitted that, the Management No.1 is a part of Defense Force,
who performs sovereign functions, hence not an Industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He
refers to Judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in LPA No. 116/2024 and connected writs
General Officer Commanding Headquarter V.s. Aijaz Ahmed and Others in which it has been laid down that
Porters who carry articles to different locations and are attached with the Battalions, the Battalions/General
Officer Commandant is not an ‗Industry‘ under Section 2(j) of the Act for these purposes. But, the fact in this
case are different, hence, this judgment is not applicable in the case in hand. As it has been held down by the
Seven Judge Bench in the case of Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage0 Board V.s. Rajappa & ors (1978) 02
SCC 213, the activities of an establishment who initially discharges sovereign functions may be industry if it is
found that, the activity had no connection with the discharge of the sovereign function. The relevant portion of
the said Judgment is being reproduced as follows -
1.
The term "analogous to the trade or business" could not cut down the scope of the term
"industry". The said words can reasonablymean only activity which results in good made and
manufactured or service rendered which are capable of being converted into saleable ones. They
must be capable of entering the world of "res commercium", although they may be kept out of
the market for some reason. It is noT the motive of an activity in making goods or running a
service but the possibility of making them marketable if one who makes goods or renders
service so desires, that should determine whether the activity lies within the domain or circle
of industry. But even this may not be always a satisfactory test. By this test the type of services
which are rendered purely for the satisfaction of spiritual or psychological urges of persons
rendering those services would be excluded. Whenever an industrial dispute would arise
between either employers and their workmen or between workmen and workmen, it should be
considered an area within the sphere of "industry" but not otherwise. In other words, the
nature of the activity will be determined by the conditions which give rise to the likelihood of
the occurrence of such disputes and their actual occurrence in the sphere.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6783
Judgments published in the order and date as delivered.
"D. N. Banerje's case [1953] SCR 302; Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Its Employees [1960] 2
SCR 942; State of Bombay and Others v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others [1960] 2 SCR 866
referred to and followed.
3. The term "sovereign should be reserved technically and more correctly for the sphere of ultimate
decisions. Sovereignty operates on a sovereign plane, of its own. Only those services which are governed
by separate rules and constitutional provisions such as Articles 310 and 311 should, strictly speaking
be excluded from the sphere of industry by a necessary implication. The H. H. Kesvananda Bharati
Sripathagalavaru v. State of Kerala [1973] Supplemental S-C-R, Page-1 referred to.
4.
The special excludes the applicability of the general. Certain public utility services which are
carried out by governmental agencies or Corporations are treated by the Act itself as within the sphere of
industry. If express rules under other enactments govern the relationship between the State as an
employer and its servants as employees, it maybe contended on the strength of such provisions that a
particular set of employees are outside the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5.
The State today increasingly undertakes commercial functions and economic activities and
services as part of its duties in a welfare state. Hence to artificially exclude state-ran industry from
the sphere of the Act, unless the statutory provisions expressly or by necessary implication have that
effect, would not be correct. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal [1967] 3 SCR 377; Rajasthan
v. Mst. Vidyawanti & Anr. [1962] Supplemental 2 SCR 989 at 1002 referred to.
1.
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (1947) which defines, "industry" contains words of
wide import, as wide as the Legislature could have possibly made them. The problem of what limitations
could and should be reasonably read in interpreting the wide words used in section 2(j) is far too. policy
oriented to be satisfactorily settled by judicial decisions. The Parliament must step in and legislate in 'a
manner which will leave no doubt as to its intention. That alone can afford a satisfactory solution to the
question which has agitated and perplexed the judiciary at all levels.
2. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha was correctly decided in so far as it held that the JJ Group of hospitals was
an industry but the same cannot be said in regard to the view of the Court that certain activities
ought to be treated as falling outside the definition clause.
3. There is no justification for excepting the categories of public utility activities undertaken by the
Government in the exercise of its inalienable function,., under the constitution, call it regal or sovereign
or by any other name, from the definition of "industry". If it be true that one must have regard to the
nature of the activity and not to who engages in it, it is beside the point to enquire whether the activity is
undertaken by the State, and further, if so, whether it is undertaken in fulfilment of the State's
constitutional obligations or in discharge of its constitutional functions. In fact, to concede the
benefit of an exception to the State's activities which are in the nature of sovereign functions is really to
have regard not so much to the nature of the activity as to the consideration who engages in that activity;
for, sovereign functions can only be discharged by the State and not by a private person. If the State's
inalienable functions are excepted from the sweep of the definition contained in section 2(j), one shall
have it is the nature of the activity is an industry. Indeed, in this respect, it should make no difference
whether on the one hand, an activity is undertaken by a corporate body in the discharge of its statutory
functions or, on the other, by the State itself in the exercise of its inalienable functions. If the water
supply and sewerage schemes or fire fighting establishments run by a Municipality can be industries
sought to be the manufacture of coins and currency, arms and ammunition and the winning of oil
and uranium. The fact that these latter kinds of activities are, or can only be, undertaken by the State does
not furnish any answer to the question whether these activities are industries.When undertaken by a
private individual they are industries, therefore, when under- taken by the State,they are industries. The
nature of the activity is the determining factor and that does not change according to who undertakes it.
Items 8, 11, 12, 17 and18 of the First Schedule read with section 2 (n) (vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act
render support to this view. These provisions which were described in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha as 'very
significant' at least show that, conceivably, a Defence Establishment, a Mint or a Security Press can be
an industry even though these activities are, ought to be and can only be undertaken by the State in the
discharge of its constitutional obligations or functions. The State does not trade when it prints a currency
note or strikes a coin. And yet, considering the nature of the activity, it is engaged in an industry when it
does so.
6784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. A systematic activity which is organized or arranged in a manner in which the trade or business is
generally organised or arranged would bean industry despite the fact that it proceeds from charitable
motives. It is in the nature of the activity that one has to consider and it is upon the application of that
test that the State's inalienable functions fall within the definition of industry. The very same Principals
must yield the result that just as the consideration as to who conducts the activity, is irrelevant for
determining whether the activity is an industry so is the fact that the activity is charitable in nature
or is undertaken with a charitable motive. The status or capacity corporate or constitutional, of the
employer would have, if at all, closer nexus, than his motive on the question whether the activity is an
industry. The motive which propels the activity is yet another step removed and ex hypothesi can have
no relevance on the question as to what is the nature of the activity. It is never true to say that the
nature of the activities is charitable. The subjective motive force of an activity can be charity but for the
purpose of deciding whether an activity is an industry one has to look at the process involved in the
activity, objectively. The jural foundation of any attempt to except charitable enterprises from the scope
of the definition can only be that' such enterprises are not undertaken for profit. But then, that clearly, is
to introduce the profit concept by a, side wind, a concept which has been rejected consistently over the
years. If any Principle can be said to be settled law in this vexed field it is this : the twin consideration of
profit motive and capital investment is irrelevant for determining whether an activity is an industry.
Therefore, activities which are dominated by charitable motives either in the sense that they involve the
rendering of free or near free services or in the sense that the profits which they yield are diverted to
charitable purposes, are not beyond the pale of the definition of section 2(j). It is as much beside the
point to inquire who is the employer as it is to inquire, why is the activity undertaken and what the
employer does with the profits, if any.
Relying on this preposition of law, the Management No.1 is held ‗industry‘ as defined under Section 2(j)
of the Act for the purposes of Civilian Barbers as it is the case in hand and these Barbers are held to be a
‗workman‘ as defined under the Act.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2 –
Learned Counsel for the Workmen has submitted that there has always been requirement of Barbers as it is
admitted by the Management itself. This is also not disputed that the nature of the activity is of permanent and
perennial nature. Hence, firstly, the Management was barred in law for engaging Outsourced Workers for the
jobs of permanent and perennial nature. Secondly, under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act,
1970 and Rules prepared there under, the Principal employer i.e. the Management No.1 in the case in hand
and the Contractor are required to have been registered with the Labour Department and licensed with it. There is
nothing on record to show that they are licensed Principal employer and contractors. Learned Counsel further
submits that, the Barbers worked in the campus of the Management No.1 i.e. the Brigadier of the Mahar
Regimental Centre and under the instructions of the Officers of the Regimental Centre. Their work was also
supervised by the Officers of the Regimental Centre. Hence, since the so called Outsourcing Contracts for three
years, which the workmen side disputed as not genuine because they do not contain signatures of any of the
parties. Even if they are taken to be genuine, they are nothing but sham and camouflage to deny the workmen of
their legally admissible rights. Learned Counsel further submits that these submissions are alternate submission
because their first case is that, the workmen have been directly engaged by the Management No.1 and were paid
their wages by the Management No.1 itself. Hence, according to the Learned Counsel for these Workmen, since
firstly, it is proved that these workmen worked directly under the Management or even alternatively, if it is found
proved that, they worked under sham and bogus Outsourcing Contracts, they shall be held to be the employees of
the Management No.1. Learned Counsel has referred to Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in this respect in
the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills V.s. Bharat Lal (2011) 1 SCC 635
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Management that, they have
specifically denied the claim of the workmen that they ever worked under the Management of Regimental Centre
as claimed by them, rather the services of the Barbers was Outsourced by the Regimental Centre to Contractor
M/s Talwar & Company, who provide them and paid their wages. He further submits that, only control and
supervision does not make the outsourcing contract sham and camouflage, it is to be seen that they were
employed by the Contractor and were paid by the Contractor. The Contractor used to raise bills and was paid by
the Management.
Learned Counsel has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. V.s. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & ors. (2019) 13 SCC 82
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6785
The Workmen side has not produced any documentary evidence except the entry pass in support of the claim
that they have been engaged by the Management of Regimental Centre directly and are not an Outsourced
employees. The Workmen have stated their affidavit as their examination in chief, that they were directly
engaged by the Regimental Centre and worked under the control and supervision of the Regimental Centre in
their campus. They were also paid their wages by Officers of Regimental Centre. Keeping in view their alleged
long engagement period as they claim, non production of any document with regards to payment of wages,
provident fund etc. makes their statement on this point not so reliable. However, this fact is also required to be
considered that though the Management has pleaded that the Barbers were taken through outsourcing agency,
who supplied Barbers in the Campus and have filed and proved outsourcing contracts only for three years i.e.
from 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. This is also to be kept in mind that out of these three outsourcing
contracts, two do not contain signatures of any of the parties. Learned Counsel for the Management submitted on
this point that, photocopies were filed but the originals contain their signatures. Even if, we take that these
contracts are signed by the parties, the point still remains that there is nothing on record to substantiate this case
of the Management that, there was any Outsourcing agreement between the Management and the any Contractor
for outsourcing the services of the Barbers before 2012. The Regiment is no doubt more than three years old at
Sagar. This leads to an inference that these workmen were working as Contract Employees of the establishment
of Brigadier of Mahar Regimental Centre before 2012 and after 2012, their services were taken through
Outsourcing Agency.
Under Section 7, 12 & 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Rules, every Principal
employer and Contractor are required to obtain a license for Contract Labour, but no license has been filed on
record.
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, he has referred to section 7, 12 & 10 of the Act
which is being reproduced as follows:-
7.
Registration of certain establishments.—
(1)
Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall,
within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix
in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make
an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the
establishment: Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for
registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that
the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.
(2)
If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering
officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a
certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed.
12. Licensing of contractors.—
(1) With effect from such date as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint, no contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute any
work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf
by the licensing officer.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a licence under sub-section (1) may contain
such conditions including, in particular, conditions as to hours of work, fixation of wages and
other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem
fit to impose in accordance with the rules, if any, made under section 35 and shall be issued on
payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum, if any, as security for the due performance
of the conditions as may be prescribed.
―10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by
notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation
or other work in any establishment.
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the
appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided
for the contract labour that establishment and other relevant factors, such as-
6786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(a)
whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for
the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in
the establishment ;
(b)
whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is so of sufficient duration
having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or
occupation carried on in that establishment;
(c)
whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or
an establishment similar thereto;
(d)
whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time
workmen.
In the Judgment of Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills (supra) referred to by Learned Counsel for Workmen, tests
for determining whether the Contract Labour is direct employee of Principal employer has been laid down in Para
10 to 12 of the Judgment, which is being reproduced as follows –
―10. It is now well settled that if the industrial adjudicator finds that the contract between the principal
employer and the contractor to be a sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the
employee and that there was in fact a direct employment, it can grant relief to the employee by holding that the
workman is the direct employee of the principal employer. Two of the well-recognised tests to find out whether
the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal employer are:
(i) whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor; and
(ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. In this case, the
Industrial Court answered both questions in d the affirmative and as a consequence held that the first
respondent is a direct employee of the appellant.
11. On a careful consideration, we are of the view that the Industrial Court committed a serious error in
arriving at those findings. In regard to the first test as to who pays the salary, it placed the onus wrongly upon
the appellant. It is for the employee to aver and prove that he was paid salary directly by the principal
employer and not the contractor. The first respondent did not discharge this onus. Even in regard to the
second test, the employee did not establish that he was working under the direct control and supervision of the
principal employer. The Industrial Court misconstrued the meaning of the terms "control and supervision"
and held that as the officers of the appellant were giving some instructions to the first respondent working as a
guard, he was deemed to be working under the control and supervision of the appellant.
12. The expression "control and supervision" in the context of contract labour was explained by this Court in
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union³ thus: (SCC p. 388, paras
38-39) -
"38.... if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work
under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the
worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to
regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the
contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such
labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the
worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the
employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides
where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the
contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the
supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is
with the contractor‖.
In the case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd (supra). referred to from the side of Management, Para 11, 12,
16, 19, 23 and 24 are being reproduced as follows –
―11.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, it is important. First, to advert to the award
of the Labour Court. The said award sets down the Notification dated 24-4-1990 that was issued
under the 1970 Act. A reading of the aforesaid notification makes it clear that the appellant,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6787
insofar as their UP operations are concerned, in Haridwar, in particular, are exempted from the
aforesaid notification. Despite this, however, the Labour Court went on to apply the said
notification, which would clearly be perverse. In addition, though Ms Jain stated that
documentary evidence was filed, yet the Labour Court based its finding on direct relationship
between the parties only on the gate passes being issued by the appellant, and on a concession
made by the appellant's representative.
12.
What is clear from the evidence that was led by the parties is that the aforesaid gate passes were
issued, as has been stated by the appellant's witness, only at the request of the contractor for the
sake of safety and also from the administrative point of view. The idea was security, as otherwise
any person could enter the precincts of the factory. This evidence was missed by the Labour
Court when it arrived at a conclusion that a direct relationship ought to be inferred from this fact
alone. Further, as has been correctly pointed out by Shri Sudhir Chandra, the appellant has, not
only in the first review, but also in the writ petition filed, taken the plea that no such concession
was ever made. Moreover, quite apart from this plea and the counter plea of Ms Jain that the
person who has made such concession should have stated that he did not do so, concessions on
mixed questions of fact and law cannot decide cases as the evidence as a whole has to be weighed
and inferences drawn therefrom.
16.
A look at this provision together with the judgment in Basti Sugar Mills e Ltd. v. Ram Ujagar
relied upon by Ms Jain, would show that in order that Section 2(i)(iv) apply, evidence must be led
to show that the work performed by contract labour is a work which is ordinarily part of the
industry of BHEL. We find, on the facts of the present case, that no such evidence has, in fact,
been led. Consequently, this finding is also a finding directly applying a provision of law without
any factual foundation for the same.
19.
Equally, the review judgment apart from being cryptic, draws an unsustainable conclusion after
setting out Para 3 of the written statement of BHEL in the Labour Court. What was stated by
BHEL in Para 3 was that the workmen were only engaged by the contractor and were not their
employees. The written statement then goes on to be speculative in stating that it appears that a
workman might have been engaged as an employee by a particular contractor. A plain reading of
this written statement would certainly not suggest that BHEL is not sure as to whether workmen
were or were not supplied by a contractor, or engaged by BHEL. What is clear from the written
statement is that BHEL has denied that the workmen were engaged by BHEL or that the
workmen were BHEL's workmen. From this to conclude that the transaction seems to be
"sham", is again wholly incorrect. Apart from this, it is also incorrect to state that BHEL has not
placed on record any material to demonstrate that under the alleged labour contract, payment
was ever made in 9 favour of Madan Lal, the alleged contractor.
23.
From this judgment in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case, it is clear that Test No. 1 is not met on
the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal
employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he
directs the workmen of the contractor "what to do" after the contractor assigns/allots the
employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what para 12 of Bengal Nagpur Cotton
Mills case explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary
in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the
principal employer to do a particular work.
24.
We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air
India Ltd. 11, as follows: (SCC pp. 437-38, para 65)
"65.
Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into
consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia:
(i) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
6788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.
As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal
Nagpur Cotton Mills case, International Airport Authority of India case and Nalco case.‖
Now, looking into the evidence as discussed above, on the Principles laid down the aforesaid decision, it is
held that the outsourcing contracts for three years produced and proved by the Management are though highly
irregular as the parties to the Outsourcing Contracts do not require license and the work is of permanent and
perennial nature, but since it is not proved that, the payments were directly made by the Management to the
Workmen, and that there was no evidence of engagement of these workmen by the Management directly, also
keeping in view that when there is a contract of manpower supply naturally, the Principal employer has power to
control and supervise all the manpower supplied, the Outsourcing Contracts are held not sham and
camouflage.
Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3 –
Learned Counsel for Workmen has submitted that, in this case, the Management of Regimental Centre has
adopted unfair labour practice. This argument has been countered by the Learned Counsel for the Management.
Section 2(ra) of the Act defines unfair labour practice, which is being reproduced as follows –
2(ra) ―unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
THE FIFTH SCHEDULE See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES I.—On the part of
employers and trade unions of employers
1…………………
.
10. To employ workmen as ―badlis‖, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with
the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.
11. …………………
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered
under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.
25U. Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair labour practice
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees or with both.
It in the pleadings of Management that, there have been sanctioned vacancies of as many as 14 Civilian
Barbers in the Regimental Centre, since there was a 100% deficiency, the services were outsourced. Nature of activity
of the workmen who are Barbers is also such that it is of permanent and perennial nature. Even if, it is held
established that, the workmen were not directly employed by Regimental Centre, rather they were Outsourced
Employees, the action of Management in engaging Contract Workers for the job of Barbers which is of permanent and
perennial nature for years and years (details mentioned earlier) is in violation of Clause 10 of Schedule V and is held
that by not employing the workmen on permanent regular basis against the permanent vacancy and engaging
contract labours for a work of permanent perennial nature either directly or by outsourcing agencies, the
management is held adopting unfair labour practice which is prohibited under the Act.
Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4 –
In the light of findings that, the Management in the case in hand has adopted unfair labour practice, the
questions arises is regarding the relief to which the workmen in the case in hand may be entitled to.
Learned Counsel for the Management, referred to Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of
Municipal Council V.s. K. Jayaram and ors. SLP No. 17711-17713 of 2019 in which it was laid down that
since, the workers were outsourced employees, they cannot be recognized as employee of the Management,
though the Hon‘ble Supreme Court granted relief to them as a special case, using their power under Section 142
of Constitution.
Following paragraphs of the judgment referred Sudarshan Rajpoot v/s U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation (2015) II, SCC 317 which are being reproduced as follows:-
―11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant workman that the High Court has erred in
placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6789
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , which was distinguished inasmuch as the said case is not applicable to the case on
hand for the reason that the appellant workman is a “workman” as defined under Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and
the respondent is the statutory corporation which is an undertaking of the State Government and therefore, as it is an
instrumentality of the State Government, it will come within the definition of “industry” as defined under Section 2(k)
of the UPID Act. Therefore, the said provisions of the UPID Act are applicable to the appellant workman as he is a
“workman” as defined under Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.
12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has failed to consider the “unfair labour practice” as defined
under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Sections 25-T and 25-U and Schedule V of the ID Act. Item 10 of
Schedule V of the ID Act prohibits the employer to employ workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years in the Corporation, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent
workmen is prohibited. It is further contended that the respondent Corporation is liable for penal action under the
provisions of Section 25-U of the ID Act. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the three-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [Chief Conservator of
Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] .
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation sought to justify
the correctness of the finding and reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment [U.P.
SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] . Alternatively, it is contended
that even if the order of termination is bad in law, the workman who is working on the contract basis is not entitled
for reinstatement with full back wages as per the view taken by this Court in several decisions. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-
C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] and order need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.
14. With reference to the abovesaid rival legal contentions the following substantial questions would arise for
our consideration:
14.1. (i) Whether the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan
Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] , order and reversing the award passed by the
Labour Court?
14.2. (ii) Whether the order of termination passed against the appellant workman amounts to retrenchment as
defined under Section 2(s) of the UPID Act, 1947?
14.3. (iii) Whether non-compliance with the statutory provisions under Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the UPID Act
which are analogous with Sections 25-F and 25-H, respectively, of the ID Act, 1947 renders the order of termination
void ab initio in law?
14.4. (iv) What relief is the appellant workman entitled to?
15. To answer the above substantial questions of law it is necessary for this Court to extract the order of
termination passed by the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation, which reads thus:
“OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGIONAL MANAGER,
U.P. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AZAD NAGAR DEPOT
Letter No. ARM/A. Ngr/Bus Accident 0582/2000/3591 dated 29-7-2000
OFFICE ORDER
On 7-6-1999 vehicle bearing No. 8582 which had met with an accident which was being driven on 7-6-1999
by Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, contractual driver and conductor Shri Kamta Prasad on Deoria to Kanpur route and
accident occurred on the way at 1.30 a.m. in the night at Village Palhari, Barabanki near Police Station
Safdarganj and due to negligent driving of the driver, department suffered heavy loss.
Hence, in order to meet departmental loss, forfeiting security of driver Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, I pass the
order to strike off his name from the contract roll with an immediate effect. His name be struck off from contract
roll.
sd/-
(Illegible)
(Sad Sayed)
Assistant Regional Manager,
Azad Nagar, Depot”
(emphasis supplied)
6790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the aforesaid order of termination it is specially mentioned that the appellant workman was appointed as a driver
on contractual basis. It has been further stated that the accident occurred on 7-6-1999 due to the negligent driving of
the appellant workman resulting in heavy loss to the Department of the respondent Corporation. In order to meet the
departmental loss, security amount of driver was forfeited and Assistant Regional Manager had struck off the name of
the appellant workman from the contract employees roll with immediate effect.
16. The respondent Corporation has neither produced documentary evidence nor showed before the Labour
Court that the appellant workman was appointed on contract basis. The fact that he deposited Rs 2000 towards
security amount with the respondent Corporation indicates that he was working as a driver on a permanent basis. In
view of Schedule V, Item 10 of the ID Act, 1947 the respondent Corporation is prohibited from engaging the appellant
workman as a badli, casual or temporary workman to work on permanent basis. The fact that he had been
continuously working for more than 3 years and he had rendered more than 240 days of service as the driver in a
calendar year until his termination order and yet he is being engaged on a contractual basis in the respondent
Corporation is statutorily prohibited. The same amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra)
read with Section 25-T, which action of the Corporation is punishable under Section 25-U of the ID Act. This legal
position is settled by this Court in Chief Conservator of Forests case [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath
Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 302-03, para
22)
“22. … In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned
in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state
that the present was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen
who went to the Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals
for long years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent employees inasmuch as giving
of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered, that the Pachgaon
Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace,
which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-
pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on the increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency
is thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on
casual basis for years the object manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the second
question also against the appellants.”
25. This Court in the later judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India [Hari Nandan
Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , after adverting to the law laid
down in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh [(2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258]
and Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC
556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] wherein Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is adverted to in both the cases, held that on a harmonious reading of the two judgments, even
when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court cannot give direction
for regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number
of years. Further, such a direction cannot be given when the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility
requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules:
25.1. It was held at para 32 in Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India,
(2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] as under : (SCC p. 211)
“32. However, the Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] found that the factual position was
different in the case before it. Here the post of cleaners in the establishment were in existence. Further, there was
a finding of fact recorded that the Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practice by engaging these workers
on temporary/casual/daily-wage basis and paying them paltry amount even when they were discharging duties of
eight hours a day and performing the same duties as that of regular employees.”
25.2. Further, Hari Nandan Prasad [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] referred at para 36, LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 :
(1981) 1 SCR 1083] in which the relevant para 22 of LIC case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1
SCR 1083] is extracted as under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India,
(2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213)
“36. … „22. The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure which seeks to pre-empt industrial tensions,
provide the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the energies of the
partners in production may not be dissipated in counterproductive battles and the assurance of industrial justice
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6791
may create a climate of goodwill.‟ (D.J. Bahadur case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR
1083] , SCC p. 334, per Krishna Iyer, J.)
In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals are given wide powers not
only to enforce the rights but even to create new rights, with the underlying objective to achieve social justice.
Way back in the year 1950 i.e. immediately after the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, in one of its first
and celebrated judgment in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees [1950 SCC 470 : AIR 1950 SC 188 : 1950 LLJ 921 at
p. 948] this aspect was highlighted by the Court observing as under : (AIR p. 209, para 61)
„61. … In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is
not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either
party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing
agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the
parties. It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping
industrial peace.‟”
25.3. And again at para 37, observing that the aforesaid sweeping power conferred upon the Tribunal is not
unbridled and is circumscribed by this Court in New Maneck Chowk Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. Textile Labour
Assn. [AIR 1961 SC 867] , the relevant para 6 of which is extracted as under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari
Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213, paras 37-
38)
“37. … „6. … This, however, does not mean that an Industrial Court can do anything and everything when
dealing with an industrial dispute. This power is conditioned by the subject-matter with which it is dealing and
also by the existing industrial law and it would not be open to it while dealing with a particular matter before it
to overlook the industrial law relating to that matter as laid down by the legislature or by this Court.‟ (Textile
Labour Assn. case [AIR 1961 SC 867] , AIR p. 870)
38. It is, thus, this fine balancing which is required to be achieved while adjudicating a particular dispute,
keeping in mind that the industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principle of fair play and
justice.”
26. In view of the aforesaid statement of law laid down by this Court after adverting to the powers of the
Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court as interpreted by this Court in the earlier decisions referred to supra, the
said principle is aptly applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court
recorded a finding of fact in favour of the workman that the termination of services of the appellant herein is not legal
and valid and further reaffirmed the said finding and also clearly held that the plea taken in the order of termination
that he was appointed on contract basis as a driver is not proved by producing cogent evidence. Further, we hold that
even if the plea of the employer is accepted, extracting work though of permanent nature continuously for more than
three years, the alleged employment on contract basis is wholly impermissible. Therefore, we have held that it
amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Section 25-T which
is prohibited under Section 25-U, Chapter V-C of the ID Act, 1947. We have to hold that the judgment of the High
Court in reversing the award is not legal and the same is set aside by us.
21. In the order of termination, it is alleged that on account of negligent driving of the bus by the appellant
workman the accident of the vehicle happened, the said allegation was neither proved in the inquiry required to be
conducted nor producing evidence before the Labour Court by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the High
Court has failed to examine the above vital aspects of the case on hand and erroneously interfered with the award
passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. This exercise of power is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Harjinder
Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. [(2010) 3 SCC 192 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1146] , wherein this Court held
thus : (SCC p. 205, para 21)
“21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in
mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and
the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and
the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular,
which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure
equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve
the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J.
opined that:
„10. … the concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives
sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.‟
(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines [AIR 1958 SC 923] , AIR p. 928, para 10.)”
6792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24. We are of the opinion that the view taken in Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya
Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] at para 36 after
distinguishing Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is the
plausible view. Therefore, we have to hold that the finding of the High Court in setting aside the finding of fact
recorded by the Labour Court in its award by applying Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006)
4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is wholly untenable in law. Therefore, the same is set aside by this Court.
23. Further, the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court on Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] by the High Court to reverse the finding of fact
recorded in the award in favour of the workman in answering the points of dispute in the negative, is not tenable in
law in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2
SCC (L&S) 513] , wherein, this Court after adverting to Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006)
4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] at para 36, has held that the said case
“does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section
32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been
working exist”. (SCC p. 574)
Further, this Court held that : (SCC p. 574, para 36)
“36. … Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]
cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order
under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item
6 of Schedule IV is established.”
Reference may be taken of judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v/s Union of India
reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 , the relevant paragraphs of this judgment are being reproduced as follows:-
―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, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and
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. ………
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 to 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 Termination:- Temporary 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 a Shield:- Institutions increasingly resort to 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.‖
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6793
The principle laid down in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has been followed by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024 (2025 INSC 144). The relevant portion
of the said judgment is being reproduced as follows:-
―12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant
Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer‘s municipal functions specifically the upkeep of
parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or
project-based. Reliance on a general ―ban on fresh recruitment‖ cannot be used to deny labor protections to long
serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. By requiring the same tasks
(planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still
compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair
labour practice. The principle of ―equal pay for equal work,‖ repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be
casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent
employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer‘s direct supervision belie any notion that these were
mere short-term casual engagements.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such
absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are
―illegal‖ and those that are ―irregular,‖ the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions.
More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor based
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment,
though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‘s
failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a
genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer‘s inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably,
this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain
status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it
failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory
violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer‘s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential,
perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget
and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of
statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate
rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The
impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage
engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:-
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen‘s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E
and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in
service from thereof their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts
akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period
of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and
all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
6794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages
from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the
aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such
duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to
ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.‖
The following observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh V.s. State of U.P. SLP No.
8558/2018 are being reproduced as follows –
― Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non
suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass
the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State‘s arbitrary refusals to sanction
posts despite the employer‘s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very
workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and
irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself
is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in
Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned
that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ―ad hocism‖,
the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC
221. Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 9 parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The
principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra)
have been reproduced hereunder:
―14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such
absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that
are ―illegal‖ and those that are ―irregular,‖ the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain
conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements
persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which
shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the
alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or
continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several Civil
Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 10 years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows
an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in
nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At
this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment
practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following
paragraphs:
―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 Civil Appeal No.
8558 of 2018 11 characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have
been criticized for exploiting workers and 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. ………
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6795
have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade
long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Civil Appeal No. 8558
of 2018 12 • 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 Termination: Temporary 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 Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 13 them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to 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.‖‖
As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is
inherently perennial. The Commission‘s further contention that the appellants are not ―full-time‖ employees
but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim Civil Appeal No.
8558 of 2018 15 protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency
of the challenge to the State‘s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that
may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had
not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ
petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during
pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe
that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State‘s stance in refusing sanction, whether in
1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division
Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the
principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a
mechanical enquiry about ―rules‖ and ―vacancy‖ while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the Civil
Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 16 State‘s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot
be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The State‘s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission‘s
proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work,
are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
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 Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 17 is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason
and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
6796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect
Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 18 from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh
recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants.
For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission)
shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant
shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-
drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per
the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time
to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization
/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be Civil
Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 19 so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in
default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until
payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect
from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation
of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three
months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of
death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of
this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this
Judgement. Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 20 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because,
case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
―reconsiderations,‖ and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on
simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As
a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in
letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of
denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising
of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of
compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in
engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 21 grace,
but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Perusal of record reveals that admittedly there have been as many as 14 vacancies of Barbers. Four
vacancies in General Category and one in Schedule Caste category was advertised for the regular appointment in
the year 2015. Case of the Management is that, these workmen were also given opportunity but they did not
fulfill the age and qualification criteria. They were not permitted to appear.
There is nothing on record to show as to what whether the qualifications for appointment of Barbers when
the applicants workmen in the case in hand were engaged.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6797
This is also established that, no certificate in the course of Barber was ever required or is still required. The
list of Barbers produced states that, most of them are at least Class 8th pass. The recruitment process of the
Barbers when they were first engaged is also not produced. This is also established that these workmen have the
requisite skill of a Barber be put in so many years in this job. In these circumstances, it was incompetent on the
part of the Management to grant relaxation with respect to age and qualification of High School as it was
mentioned in the recruitment notification of 2015 to give these workmen who had put in so many years as a
Barber in service of Regimental Centre, hence it is established that, the Regimental Centre has adopted unfair
labour practice in the case in hand as detailed above.
Case of the Management is that only five vacancies were fulfilled because the vacancies were released only
for eight Barbers. It gives rise to the inference that at least 06 vacancies are still available at present with the
Management and is held accordingly.
This is also established that some of the workmen namely workman Motilal has attained the age of
superannuation i.e. 60 years during the pendency of this reference. Hence, keeping all these facts in view and
taking them in the light of settled preposition of law as mentioned earlier, it is in the interest of Justice that the
Management of Regimental Centre be directed to initiate within a time frame of six months from the date of
Award, a transparent and fair recruitment process for the remaining 06 vacant posts of Barbers with them
granting relaxation with respect to age and educational qualification for the period they have worked as
Barbers except those who have not yet attained the age of superannuation on the date of Award.
The Barbers who attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the dispute, are held entitled
to a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Management of establishment of Brigadier Mahar
Regimental Centre, in lieu of all their claims.
Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.
No other point was pressed.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, Award is passed as follows.
AWARD
Holding that, the Management of Brigadier Regimental Centre, Sagar and Station Staff Officer of the
Station Headquarter, Sagar have adopted unfair labour practice by way of taking the services of the Workmen
in the cases through Outsourcing Agencies as Contract workers for years and years in spite of the fact there
were vacant posts of Barbers with the Management, they are directed to initiate within a time frame of six
months from the date of Award, a transparent and fair recruitment process for the remaining 06 vacant posts
of Barbers with them granting relaxation with respect to age and educational qualification for the period they
have worked as Barbers and have not yet attained the age of superannuation on the date of Award.
The Barbers who attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the dispute, are held entitled
to a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) from the Management of establishment of
Brigadier Mahar Regimental Centre, in lieu of all their claims.
No order as to cost.
DATE:-24/04/2026
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 जून, 2026
का.आ. 1368.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj सेंरल बैंक ऑफ़ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV
(a14/2010) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/91/2009- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उप
6798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 30th June, 2026
S.O. 1368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kanpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/91/2009- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)
ID Case No. 14 of 2010
Shri Anil Kumar Sonawani,
RO: 2/283, Adarshnagar,
Shuklaganj, Distt. Unnao, UP.
…………….Workman
Vs.
The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Pandu Nagar,
Kanpur (U.P.)-
…………………Management
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 7th day of April, 2026)
As per letter dated 04/02/2010 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-12012/91/2009-IR (B-II) dt. 04.02.2010. The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Kanpur in removing Shri Anil Kumar
Sonawani w.e.f. 03.06.2007 from the services of the Bank is just & proper? To what relief is the concerned
applicant entitled to?"
Claimant/workman Ashok Kumar Kashyap (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with
averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:
1. It is submitted that the Respondent Bank—Central Bank of India—is governed solely by the bilateral
agreements entered into from time to time between the Management and the Union, as well as by the Shastri
Award and the Desai Award.
2. It is submitted that, in accordance with the aforementioned settlements, the banking industry comprises
employees falling under the following categories:
(a) Permanent
(b) Probationer
(c) Temporary
(d) Part-time
3. It is submitted that the Applicant was appointed to the post of Peon at the Meston Road, Kanpur branch of
the Respondent Bank in December 2001. His duties encompassed all tasks typically performed by a Peon—
such as arriving on time to unlock the bank premises, cleaning chairs and tables, delivering mail, and moving
registers from one place to another—in addition to performing any other tasks assigned to him by the Bank
Management. However, his remuneration was lower than the prescribed minimum wage.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6799
4. It is submitted that the Respondent Bank is a banking institution registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
and is wholly owned by the Government of India—a body often hailed as an "Ideal Employer." However, in
matters concerning appointments, the Respondent Bank adopts practices that constitute a blatant violation of
the labor laws enacted by the Parliament of India.
5. It is submitted that, after engaging the Applicant to perform the duties of a Peon continuously for a period of
six years, the Respondent Bank removed him from service without citing any reason whatsoever. A similar
pattern has been observed previously, wherein numerous individuals were removed from service after having
worked for periods ranging from six to seven years; notable among them is Mr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari, who
was formerly employed at this very branch, along with many others.
6. It is submitted that the services of the Applicant were terminated by the Respondent Bank, effective from
June 3, 2007, pursuant to a verbal order issued by the then newly appointed Branch Manager, Mr. A.K.
Tandon.
7. It is submitted that the Respondent Bank engages unemployed laborers under the guise of "casual" or "part-
time" workers, extracting 10 to 12 hours of work from them daily, while effecting payments solely through
vouchers. Such payments are made at rates significantly lower than the standard norms, thereby exploiting
the vulnerable circumstances and financial compulsions of these workers.
8. It is submitted that, despite having utilized their services for such an extended duration, these workers are
eventually removed from service; furthermore, at the time of such removal, absolutely no labor laws or
regulations are adhered to.
9. It is submitted that the aforementioned conduct of the Respondent Bank stands as irrefutable evidence of
unfair, illegal, unjust, and mala fide actions, as well as a glaring instance of unfair labor practices.
10. Therefore, it is prayed that the following reliefs be granted through an Award:
(a) Declare the order of termination of service, effective from 03.06.2007, as unjustified.
(b) Direct reinstatement to duty with continuity of service.
(c) Pass an order for the payment of wages and compensation for other financial losses incurred
during the period of unemployment.
(d) Award the costs of the proceedings.
Respondent side has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:
1. Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani was engaged by the Central Bank of India Branch office, Meston Road, Kanpur
on CONTRACT BASIS on payment of fixed Labour Charges for lifting Water from outside the premises,
since the premises of the Bank is on Ist Floor.
2. He was paid Water Charges through payment Vouchers by the Bank.
3. Applicant Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani did not hold any post in the Bank and had never worked against any
regular or permanent post in the Bank.
4. Applicant Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani has not filed any documentary proof of particulars in respect, of
employment in the Central Bank of India,
5. It is submitted that Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani had neither marked nor signed on any Attendance Register.
6. Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani was never appointed by the Bank on the post of Peon (sub-staff) in regular and
permanent Post.
7. The Management had never issued any appointment letter or orders to Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani, therefore
termination of his services also do not arise at all.
8. Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani had never worked continuously in the Bank. He had not completed 240 Working
days in any Calendar year in the Bank.
9. Bank's Management had neither terminated nor removed the services of Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani with
effect from 3-6-2007 as mentioned in the present reference order. Hence, on this ground alone, the present
reference order is without jurisdiction, bad in law and not maintainable under the law of industrial
jurisprudence.
10. As such, there was never any employer-employee relationship between the applicant Shri Anil Kumar
Sonwani and the Management of Central Bank of India.
11. Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani was never governed by the Rules/Regulations of the Central Bank of India.
6800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. It is however be again submitted that appointment to the Post of Peon on regular basis is made through only
Employment Exchange after interview on the basis of suitability eligibility and other qualifying criteria.
Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani was not subjected to such exercise and he has given a misstatement to misguide
the Hon'ble Tribunal, Kanpur.
13. The Central Bank of India has got specific in procedures for employment of regular employees for the
Written test are taken and the candidates who are successful in the written tests, they are interviewed and
after completing the interview, the employees who are offered job are given regular appointment letter.
14. In view of the above, the case of Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani does not deserve any consideration on merits and
is liable to be rejected outright.
15. Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani had no lien or right on any regular and permanent Post in the Central Bank of
India.
16. The nature of work of lifting Water from outside premises in which Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani was engaged
according to the Bank's exigencies is not covered by the Bank Awards and Settlement.
17. The present claims of Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani are not covered by section 25-B, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
18. It is submitted that Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani had never appointed on the post of Peon (sub, staff) in the
Central Bank of India, Branch Meston Road, Kanpur as alleged.
19. It is fact that the applicant Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani was simply engaged on Contract basis on the payment
of fixed Labour Charges for particular work for lifting Water from outside premises of the Bank, since the
premises of the Bank is on the First Floor.
20. The Labour Charges paid to the applicant was more than sufficient looking to the job performed by the
applicant. Moreover, the provisions of payment of Minimum wages Act, 1948 are not applicable on the
Banking Industry.
21. Sri Anil Kumar Sonwani was never appointed by the Bank on the Post of Peon (sub-staff) in regular and
permanent Post.
22. Management had never issued any appointment letter or orders to Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani.
23. He had not completed 240 Working days in any Calendar year in the Bank.
24. Working hours of Shri Anil Kumar Sonwani were not fixed by the Bank and same was dependant on his
sweet will for 1 to 2 hours on each day.
After filing of above written statement by opposite party, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In rejoinder, the
applicant denied the averment of the written statement filed by opposite party is stated that:
1. The facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Written Statement submitted by the Defendant are
denied, as they are untrue, misleading, and false. The correct facts are that the Plaintiff was appointed on a
permanent basis to a vacant post of Peon, and payments were disbursed to him through payment vouchers.
2. The facts set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Written Statement submitted by the Defendant are
denied, as they are based on a misconception and are false. The correct facts are that the Plaintiff remained in
the continuous service of the Bank from December 2001 until 03.06.2007, and the payment vouchers are
safely preserved with the Bank; the responsibility for producing the same lies with the Bank.
After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:
1. Bank Voucher dated 05.04.2003.
2. Bank Voucher dated 26.04.2003.
3. Bank Voucher dated 12.07.2003.
4. Bank Voucher dated 02.08.2003.
5. Bank Voucher dated 09.08.2003.
6. Bank Voucher dated 23.08.2003.
7. Bank Voucher dated 06.09.2003.
8. Bank Voucher dated 13.09.2003.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6801
9. Bank Voucher dated 03.10.2003.
10. Bank Voucher dated 11.10.2003.
11. Bank Voucher dated 18.10.2003.
12. Bank Voucher dated 20.12.2003.
13. Bank Voucher dated 27.12.2003.
14. Bank Voucher dated 03.01.2004.
15. Bank Voucher dated 10.01.2004.
16. Bank Voucher dated 31.01.2004.
17. Bank Voucher dated 07.02.2004.
18. Bank Voucher dated 14.01.2004.
19. Bank Voucher dated 21.02.2004.
20. Bank Voucher dated 28.02.2004.
21. Bank Voucher dated 05.03.2004.
22. Bank Voucher dated 13.03.2004.
23. Bank Voucher dated 20.03.2004.
24. Bank Voucher dated 29.01.2005.
25. Bank Voucher dated 22.01.2005.
26. Bank Voucher dated 09.03.2005.
27. Bank Voucher dated 02.04.2005.
28. Bank Voucher dated 08.04.2005.
29. Bank Voucher dated 16.04.2005.
30. Bank Voucher dated 19.04.2005.
31. Bank Voucher dated 30.04.2005.
32. Bank Voucher dated 07.05.2005.
33. Bank Voucher dated 03.12.2005.
34. Bank Voucher dated 10.12.2005.
35. Bank Voucher dated 24.12.2005.
36. Bank Voucher dated 04.02.2006.
37. Bank Voucher dated 06.05.2006.
38. Bank Voucher dated 05.09.2006.
39. Bank Voucher dated 20.09.2006.
40. Bank Voucher dated 08.05.2007.
41. Peon Book Year 2006.
42. Payment Register of Cheque Receipt,
43. Cash Payment Register.
Further applicant filed some documents which is as under:
1. On September 16, 2012, the Respondent Bank, acting through Ravi Trading Company, caused the
destruction of records pertaining to the Applicant.
2. On November 28, 2011, the Respondent Bank issued forms for the appointment of former casual employees,
which were duly filled out by the Applicant.
6802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. Regarding the applications submitted for the recruitment of former casual employees—a process in which
the Applicant had also submitted an application—by the Respondent Bank.
In rebuttal respondent filed documents which are read as under:
1. Payment voucher dated 04.02.2006 for Rupees 300/- only.
2. Payment voucher dated 11.03.2006 for Rupees 300/- only.
3. Payment voucher dated 15.07.2007 for Rupees 50/- only.
As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Kanpur in
removing Shri Anil Kumar Sonawani w.e.f. 03.06.2007 from the services of the Bank is just & proper? To what relief
is the concerned applicant entitled to?"
Applicant said in our claim statement that he was employed in December, 2001 as a Peon. He did all the work of the
Bank but the bank paid him less wages. He do continuation six years of work as a Peon, without any reason he
removed from services on 03.06.2007.
In the rebuttal opposite party stated in our written statement, the applicant was engaged by Central Bank of India on
contract basis on payment of fixed labour charges for lifting water from outside the premises since the premises of
Bank is on the first floor. He was paid charges through a payment voucher by the opposite party. The applicant did
not hold any post and never worked against any regular and permanent post in the Bank and he was not filed any
documentary proof in respect of employment. The applicant had never worked continuously in the Bank, he had not
completed 240 working days in calendar year in the Bank.
Against that rejoinder is filed by the applicant and stated that the true fact is that his appointment on the Post of Peon
is permanent in the vacant post. He worked from December, 2001 to 03.06.2007 continuously and the voucher was
reserved and the rest written statement paras denied.
Now the question arises whether the applicant is an employee as mentioned in his claim statement and his rejoinder,
because the applicant said that in our rejoinder in para 1 that he was a permanent employee. Against that opposite
party said he was engaged on contract basis on payment of fixed labour charges.
Upon this point oral and documentary evidence of the parties are important. Applicant filed bank voucher by paper
number 15 from 1 to 43 which is mentioned above. Again by paper number 20 he filed three documents which are
mentioned already above and examined himself after the Bank.
The opposite party filed documentary evidence by paper number 14 which is mentioned above.
As per the question of the employer and workman in the ID Act, there is a workman definition in section 2 (s) is read
as under:
"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms
of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [one thousand rupees] per
menses or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested
in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
And employer definition is given in section 2 (g) is read as under:
―employer‖ means-
(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of '[the Central
Government or a State Government] the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is
prescribed, the head of the department;
(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that
authority;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6803
As per claim statement and evidence of applicant, applicant said that he worked from December, 2001 till 03.06.2007
and he also stated that he worked continuously for six years. Now, the first oral evidence of an applicant is important.
Applicant said in our chief examination, in para 1 that he was appointed as Peon/Messenger from December, 2001
and he worked for Six years continuously and more than 240 days in every year. In our cross examination, he said
that it is incorrect to state that I was employed at the bank's Meston Road branch solely to fetch and carry water. The
information recorded on Paper No. 15/13 is accurate, and it bears my signature. It is incorrect to claim that I have not
worked at the bank. I was not issued a formal appointment letter for the position of Peon; rather, the vacancy was
posted on the notice board, and I secured the position after a fellow Peon facilitated a conversation between me and
the Bank Manager. I did not undergo any interview or test for the post of Peon.
I worked at the Meston Road branch from December 2001 to June 2007. Upon examining Document No. 15/42, the
witness stated that it is a voucher dated 08.05.2017, bearing my signature. I did not make a photocopy of the voucher
myself; rather, the peon stationed there handed me the voucher and told me to get a photocopy made, as it would be
useful to me.
The opposite party submitted two vouchers by paper number 14, in these vouchers, the first is dated 04.02.2006
amount is shown three hundred rupees and behind that applicant signature is found. In second voucher dated
11.03.2006 amount is shown three hundred rupees and behind that applicant signature is found. In third voucher dated
15.05.2007 amount is shown Rupees Fifty and behind that applicant signature is found.
Opposite party examined Shri Manoj Kumar Kureel, he supported our written statement in our chief examination. In
our cross examination said that I am unaware of the exact number of years and days that the worker, Anil Kumar
Sonwani, worked at the bank. The then Branch Manager dismissed him on June 3, 2007. I do not know whether the
Court issued any order requisitioning the worker's vouchers; however, no such vouchers have been filed in the Court.
Now, as claim statement, claimant said that he worked for Six year continuously more than 240 days in every year.
The provision of section 25 B is important.
Section 25 B of the ID Act said as:
[25-B. Definition of continuous service- For the purpose of this Chapter-
(1) a workmen 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; [25-B. Definition of continuous service
(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.
As per documentary evidence of the applicant, he filed 43 cash payment vouchers photocopy and some photocopies
are not visible. After the perusal of that photocopy, I found that the applicant paid some amount on different dates
from 2003 to 2006. This is only documentary evidence is filed by applicant and later on he filed three documents of
photocopy First is Ravi Trading Company for disposal of old records for destruction (pulping) of your branch/office
premises.
Second is application form for employment.
As mentioned above by me that as per documentary evidence only applicant filed above vouchers sheets photocopy.
Bank said as mentioned by me above that the applicant was engaged by the bank on contract basis on payment of
fixed labour charges. No as such documents are filed by applicant that shows he worked 240 days in a year
continuously for six years.
Now the cross examination of the applicant is important before reaching finding. In cross examination, the applicant
said as stated above that paper number 15/13 the contents is right and correct and there is my signature. Paper number
15/13 a voucher of dated 18.10.2003 about Rupees Three hundred and upon that photocopy paper is also mentioned
6804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
water charges, bank also said as stated that he was engaged on contract basis. Near about every voucher is mentioned
water charges are purchased through/ paid Anil Kumar.
Further, said in his cross examination no appointment letter was given to him hence it is clear there is no appointment
letter issued by the opposite party to the applicant for any post. No interview was held for the post of Peon.
I got a photo copy of the above vouchers from Peon and he said kept it, which was useful to you. Opposite party bank,
in bank there is a procedure of appointment, first advertisement, then search suitable candidate and interview/test etc.
After that an appointment letter was issued to the successful candidates. Hence it is clear that the applicant never
faced any interview, he did not have any appointment letter, he did not have any removing from the services order
which was issued by the opposite party.
Written arguments are submitted by both parties. In our written argument the applicant said in para as stated above he
worked from December, 2001 till 03.06.2007 and quoted in our written argument the cross examination of the
opposite party witness in support of our claim statement which is read as under:
“असनल सोनवानी बैंक में पानी भरने का काम कैज अल वकसर के रुप में काम करते थे। म ढे इसकी जानकारी
न ी ै। सक वकसर असनल सोनवानी इतने वर्स सकतने सदन म ीना बैंक मे काम सकया। तत्कालीन शाखा प्रबंधक
ने इनको 03.06.2007 को काम से सनकाल सदया। इसने सनकालने के प ले कैज अल लेबर के रुप में भती ोने के
बाद सदनााँक 03.06.2007 तक लगातार काम सकया था। मैं, कोई कारण न ीं बता सकता सक इसकी सेवायें क्यों
समाप्त की गयी।
म झे य जानकारी न ीं ै सक न्यायालय द्वारा श्रसमक के वाउचर तलब सकये जाने का आदेश हुआ था सक न ीं
लेसकन ऐसे कोई वाउचर न्यायालय की फाइल में दाखखल न ी ै। श्रसमक को सनकालते समय छंटनी म आवजा
आसद न ी सदया गया ै।“
Now, it is clear from above discussion, that applicant have no any documentary evidence that shows he was employee
as stated by him in claim statement, because bank said he was daily wages. In support of our statement bank filed case
laws passed by the Hon‘ble High Court in case of Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, Moradabad Vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Rampur and others 2005 (104) FLR 65, in the case of Rajesh Singh Vs. Labour Court, Allahabad
and others 2006(111) FLR 89, and in the case of R.M. Yellatti vs. Assistant Executive Engineer 2006 (108) FLR
213.
From documentary evidence, it is proved that the applicant is worked on contract basis only and as per definition of
section 25 B, he never worked 240 Days in calendar year. The opposite party is an undertaking institution of the
Government of India, there is a procedure of rule for the appointment of the post of the Peon. The applicant said in
our cross examination that he never faced any interview and it is also important that he applied for the post of Peon as
documents mentioned above.
Hence, the applicant is not covered by section 25 B and 25 F of the ID Act and no case of termination or retrenchment
nor dismissal no removal and not he came in definition of workman as given in definition of workman above.
Applicant is not given any salary proof not given any certificate that he worked more than 240 days in a year.
Burden of proof upon applicant that he established our case as mentioned in his our claim statement, rejoinder and
examination in chief. No date was given in December, 2001 when he started work as stated in his claim statement and
chief examination in para 1. He said in his rejoinder that his appointment nature was permanent but no any documents
are placed before the Tribunal that shows he was the permanent appointment of the Post of Peon. Applicant also have
not given any proof of salary or wages said period as stated in the claim statement. There is settled law of daily wages
the employee has no right for permanent post as mentioned above by me which is also held by Hon'ble High Court.
Opposite party said that he was engaged on a contract basis on payment of fixed labour charges and also said that he
was paid water charges through payment voucher by the bank and that vouchers are also co relates that applicant is
paid water charges on different dates and different amounts that vouchers was filled by applicant and in some
vouchers is mentioned water charges. As per question of daily wages employee come in the morning and end in the
evening of every day. He had no right to get permanent post and cannot be regularized. The deployment of daily
wages on contract basis is only for exigency of the work and when there was no work as such employees is dispense
with or without any notice, there is no any need to give opportunity for hearing. When the employment of the
applicant was on a job required basis and was not for any continuous services required by the board in those
conditions applicant cannot claim permanent post.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948
6805
Since the applicant has failed to establish that he was a "workman" on a regular post or that he completed "continuous
service" of 240 days, the protections under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act are not applicable to him. The cessation of his
engagement upon completion of the specific task or contract cannot be termed as "illegal retrenchment."
In view of the above, the applicant has failed to prove the existence of a valid employer-employee relationship or the
completion of 240 days of service. Therefore, the action of the Management in ceasing the engagement of the
applicant is held to be just, proper, and legal.
The claim of the applicant is hereby dismissed. The applicant is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement, back
wages, or compensation.
Accordingly, the reference is answered in the negative. The claimant is not entitled to any relief. A 'Nil' Award is
hereby passed.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 07.04.2026
Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
KUMER
CHAND
MEENA
Digitally signed by
KUMER CHAND
MEENA
Date: 2026.08.19
12:22:58 +05'30'