GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Chandigarh Administration Gazette
Published by Authority
NO. 057] CHANDIGARH, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 03, 2024 ( CHAITRA 14, 1946 SAKA)
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 18th March, 2024
No. 13/2/88-HII(2)-2024/4441.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947) read with Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment's Notification No. S-11025/21/2003-IR(PL) dated 28.7.2004, the undersigned hereby publish the following award bearing reference No. 72/2021 dated 14.12.2023 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT Chandigarh between :
VINOD S/O SH. HANS RAJ, HOUSE NO.747, HALLOMAJRA, U.T. CHANDIGARH. (Workman)
AND
1. M/S CHECKMATE SERVICE PVT. LTD., SCF NO. 128, PHASE-3-B2, DISTRICT MOHALI THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. AXIS BANK LTD., AXIS BANK CURRENCY CHEST, SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER (Management)
AWARD
1. Vinod, workman has presented industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after in short called 'ID Act').
2. Briefly stated the averments of claim statement are that on 18.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed by management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mohali as Cash Sorter. The claimant-workman was deployed at the workplace of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Ltd., Axis Bank Currency Chest, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The claimant-workman remained there in the continuous employment up to 11.02.2021 when his services were illegally & wrongfully terminated by refusing of work. The claimant- workman was drawing `17,000/- per month as wages at the time of termination. On 12.02.2021 the claimant- workman went to attend his normal duty but he was refused work by management No.2 on the pretext that the management No.1 has asked them to refuse work to the worker. No reason of refusal of work was given to the claimant-workman by both the managements. The refusal of work, which amounts to termination, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The management No.1 has also violated Section 25-F of the ID Act. No charge sheet was issued, no inquiry was held and the claimant-workman was not paid retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. Violation of the same makes the termination void. For his reinstatement the claimant-workman served upon the management a demand notice dated 15.02.2021. The management neither denied the contents of the demand notice nor took the claimant-workman back on duty. The Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh was requested for his 1228 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) intervention. Management No.1 appeared before the Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh one time only and thereafter he did not appear before the conciliation on any date fixed for settlement. The termination is illegal, wrongful, motivated against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice. The claimant-workman remained unemployed during the period i.e. from the date of termination to till date. Prayer is made that the claimant-workman be reinstated with continuity of service along with full back wages and without any change in his service condition.
3. On notice, management No.1 contested the claim statement by filing written reply dated 12.11.2022 (filed on 06.12.2022) wherein it is stated that the date of commencement is correct but the answering management did not terminate any employee. It is denied as incorrect that both these managements refused work to the claimant-workman. Since no termination was done, thus retrenchment benefits, charge sheet, inquiry to be held before termination etc. are not applicable. The employees collectively absented and refused to come to work, the matter was taken up with disciplinary action, Checkmate Security Services have made sufficient representation at Labour Department. The applicant's plea that action of the management is illegal, wrongful, motivated, against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice is not acceptable. The claimant-workman's plea of demanding reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and without any change in service condition etc. is not acceptable. No such intentions and acts were initiated by employer but all outstanding efforts were made to get the employee to work as the company had to face huge losses.
4. Management No.2 contested the claim statement by filing separate written statement dated 01.11.2022 (filed on 01.11.2022) wherein preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the claim statement is not legally maintainable as there is privity of contract between claimant-workman and the answering management and the claimant-workman was never hired by the answering management.
5. On merits, it is denied for want of knowledge that on 18.06.2019 the claimant-workman was appointed as Cash Sorter by management No.1. The answering management had hired the services of management No.1 but appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1 and the answering management has no role to play in it. The alleged the claimant-workman was not on the roll of bank nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by the answering management. No refusal as alleged by the claimant-workman was conveyed by the officials of the answering management. No alleged demand notice was ever served upon the answering management and also no notice was received by the answering management from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant-workman never remained employee or worker of the answering management. Rest of the averments of the claim statement are denied being incorrect and prayer is made that claim statement may be dismissed with cost.
6. The claimant-workman filed rejoinder to the written statement of management No.1 on 17.01.2023 wherein contents of the written statement except admitted facts are denied and averments of claim statement are reiterated. Rejoinder to written statement of management No.2 was not filed.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.03.2023 :-
1. Whether the termination of the workman is illegal ? OPW
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits as prayed for ? OPW
3. Whether the claim statement qua management No.2 is not maintainable? OPM (management No.2)
4. Relief.
8. In evidence, claimant-workman Vinod examined himself as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A'. On 08.09.2023 Learned Representative for the claimant-workman closed the evidence in affirmative.
9. On the other hand, management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Rajpal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh, who tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A'.
10. Management No.1 examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking) of M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali, who tendered into evidence his affidavit vide Exhibit 'MW2/A' along with notary attested copies of documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/7'.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1229Exhibit 'MW2/1' is authority letter dated 28.03.2019 in Jaspal Singh issued by the Managing Director & Company Secretary of management No.1.
Exhibit 'MW2/2' is aadhar card of Jaspal Singh.
Exhibit MW2/3' is warning letter dated 12.02.2021 issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through courier
Exhibit 'MW2/3-A' is original receipt of DTDC Courier Agencies.
Exhibit 'MW2/4' is absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 for not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
Exhibit 'MW2/4-A' is original postal receipt dated 20.02.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/5' is letter dated 17.03.2021 for final intimation on not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
Exhibit 'MW2/5-A' is original postal receipt dated 19.03.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/6' is original undelivered registered letter accompanied bearing postal endorsement 'refused to receive'.
Exhibit 'MW2/7' is original undelivered registered letter accompanied with acknowledgment bearing postal endorsement 'refused to receive'.
11. On 16.11.2023 Learned Representative for management No.2 closed the evidence on behalf of management No.2. On 06.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed oral evidence. On 14.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed documentary evidence.
12. I have heard arguments of Learned Representatives for the parties and perused the judicial file.
My issue-wise findings are as below :-
Issue No. 1 to 3 :
13. Onus to prove issue No.1 & 2 is on the workman and onus to prove issue No.3 is on management No.2.
14. Under these issues, claimant-workman Vinod examined himself as his own witness as AW1 and vide his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A' deposed the averments of claim statement in toto which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
15. Management No.1 has examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking), who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that he is working with management No.1 as Deputy General Manager (Banking) with Employee Code EMP/COR006558, Office at SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SA S Nagar, Mohali from 06.05.2014 and he is personally aware of the facts of this case. Management No.1 is a company registered as per the provisions of the Company's Act, 1956. Management No.1 is engaged in business of providing security services, cash sorter services across the India to its customers on the basis of requirement and as per contract terms and agreement. Contrary to the workman's claim of illegal termination, he submits that the employment of the claimant-workman was not terminated. Due to exigency of work in the other location of management No.1, he as DGM (Banking) transferred the following four employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company's requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
These employees were transferred to their Ahmedabad office. They were given transfer letters given by hand to report to Checkmate, Ahmedabad Office under his instructions (as per company's requirement) on 11.02.2021 through Indian post RPAD. These letters were given in person which they refused to accept.
1230 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)They were briefed regarding the transfer, which they refused to accept, return letter with remarks of refusal. The transfer letters were displayed on the notice board of the Axis Bank on same day i.e. on 11.02.2021. On 12.02.2021, he was on leave and was attending function at his home town, when he received a call from Mr. Ritesh Kumar - Branch Manager, Axis Bank, stating that no employee of Checkmate Services had reported for duty and when they and he had tried to contact their employee, they were absent. The claimant-workman stated that they will not come to work and all were not willing to come for duty any more. He informed about the mass absenteeism by the claimant-workman and repeated calls were received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employee who have not come on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff as bank work stuck up due to cash sorter not reporting for duty. He kept on calling absentee employees from his phone but his phone was not picked by any of the absent employees for the next 2 days i.e. 12.02.2021 to 14.02.2021. On resuming his office on 15.02.2021, he himself again tried to contact the absconding employees, only Mr. Ravi Kumar, EMP/CHD05592 and Mr. Pankaj Kataria, EMP/CHD/03936 picked the call and agreed to come to Mohali Office SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali. On next day i.e. 16.02.2021 he himself tried to convince both the absconded employees to resume their duties as the bank officials were putting lot of pressure and the work stoppage had very negative impact on the bank services and their reputation and high penalty clause in the agreement. Both the employees Mr. Ravi Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kataria were ready to understand and joined the duties but stated that other fellow employees had threatened them not to join the duty. Meanwhile they have appointed new staff in place of absconded employees to fill the bank requirement and their repetition as service provider as well to avoid high penalty of non-providing contractual staff as per agreement. Also they have approached the absconded staff to join duty at the other place. They have requirement at Ahemdabad, for that they had sent the letter through RP/AD post letter dated 11.02.2021 as well sent the absenteeism-cum- not reporting on duty letter on 18.02.2021 and final letter on 17.03.2021 to the claimant-workman to join duty as his services has not been terminated nor any violation of his appointment services conditions. He asserts that the management has never terminated the services of the claimant-workman. On the contrary the management has provided multiple opportunities to the claimant-workman to re-join duty even after a mass absconding incident incurred. The claimant-workman however failed to respond or re-join and instead engaged in mass absconding without any prior intimation. This action appears to be an attempt to harass both the managements to coercive tactics by the claimant-workman. The management remains willing to offer employment as there has been no formal termination of services. Consequently, there is no basis for claims related to back wages or any other form of compensation, given that the service has not been terminated. MW2 supported his oral version with documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/7'.
16. The management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Raj Pal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A' wherein he deposed that the present alleged claim filed by the claimant against management No.2 is legally maintainable as there is no privity of contract between claimant and management No.2 and the claimant was never hired by management No.2. Management No.2 had hired the services of management No.1 but the appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1. Management No.2 had no role to play in it. The alleged claimant was not on the roll of the bank, nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by management No.2. No notice as alleged was ever served upon management No.2 and also no notice was received by management No.2 from the office of Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant never remained employee or worker of management No.2.
17. From the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties it comes out that undisputedly the claimant-workman was appointed on 18.06.2016 as Cash Sorter by management No.1 and was deployed at the work place of management No.2. In this regard, AW1 when to put to cross-examination by management No.2 stated that Axis Bank / management No.2 did not issue him any appointment letter and termination letter / order. He was deployed with the Axis Bank / management No.2 by M/s Checkmate i.e. management No.1. MW1 (witness of management No.2) when to put to cross-examination by the workman admitted as correct that the Axis Bank has contract with the Checkmate Services for providing the manpower. MW1 admitted as correct that the Checkmate Services provided about 15 workers including the claimant of the present case for deployment with Chandigarh Branch of Axis Bank. MW1 stated that CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1231 bank was not maintaining the attendance of contractual workers. The supervisor of Checkmate was maintaining their attendance. The bank had not been supervising the disbursement of wages and provident fund etc. of the contractual workers. MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1) when to put cross- examination by the workman stated that the agreement of management No.1 with the Axis Bank Ltd. / management No.2 was at central level and there was no local agreement. Under the said agreement, management No.1 provided 18 workers to management No.2 around year 2016. From the above-mentioned version of AW1, MW1 and MW2 it is duly established on record that management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is service provider, who under the contract has provided security services and Cash Sorter services to management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh and the claimant-workman was deployed by the management No.1 at the work place of management No.2 as a Cash Sorter. Since management No.1 maintained the record of attendance and supervision of work of claimant-workman through its Supervisor, thus the claimant-workman was under the direct employment of management No.1 and was a contractual worker deployed with management No.2. There is no direct relationship of employer-employee between management No.2 and claimant-workman. Since management No.2 has hired the services of claimant-workman from its service provider i.e. management No.1, therefore, management No.2 was necessary party, being principal employer, and the claim qua management No.2 is duly maintainable.
18. Admittedly, the authority to appoint, transfer and terminate the contractual employee (herein claimant-workman) was with the service provider i.e. management No.1. Learned Representative for the claimant-workman argued that the claimant-workman remained in continuous employment of the management No.1 from the date of appointment i.e. 18.06.2019 up to 11.02.2021, thus completed 240 days of continuous service in 12 calendar months preceding termination of his services (service being verbally terminated on 12.02.2021). The claimant-workman has alleged that his last drawn wages were ` 17,000/- per month. In this regard MW2 (witness of management No.1) was put to cross-examination by workman stated that there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, amount of monthly salary and the date of dispensing with of their services. MW2 further stated that all the workers including the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding their absence from duty.
19. Management No.1 has taken the plea that 15 contractual workers were deployed with management No.2. On 11.02.2021, out of 15 contractual workers, 4 workers namely Ravinder, Joginder Pal, Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar were transferred to Ahmedabad. 4 workers who were transferred refused to accept the transfer letter and refused to join at Ahmedabad. The transfer-cum-movement order was also affixed on the notice board of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Limited. In order to put pressure upon the management No.1 to cancel the transfer order of four employees all 15 contractual workers collectively absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021. After extensive follow-ups, 2 workers returned to duty with the same employment terms & conditions whereas the remaining 13 including the workman of the present case did not resume duty. It is further argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that M/s Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. has not terminated the service of any of the workman in any manner. Management No.1 has followed due procedure issuing absenteeism letters and reminders, emphasising the company's intent for workman to resume duty but he refused to receive. Management No.1 also issued warning letter dated 12.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/3' through courier vide receipt Exhibit 'MW2/3A', issued another absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/4' vide postal receipt Exhibit 'MW2/4A' and final intimation for not reporting on duty vide letter dated 17.03.2021 Exhibit 'MW2/5' through registered post vide Exhibit 'MW2/5A'. Despite issuance of various letters, the claimant-workman did not join back the duty, thus, the claimant-workman himself abandoned the job, though his services were never terminated by management No.1. The workman failed to report to his duty at the work place without any prior notice or explanation which is a clear violation of company's policy and established work expectations. The employer has the inherent right to manage its work force including making decisions regarding re-location. Management No.1 has acted in accordance with its established policies and procedures which were communicated to all the employees by all means to join duty.
20. On the other hand, Learned Representative for the workman contended that no letter / letters as alleged by management No.1 were ever received by the claimant-workman. There is nothing on record to show that the letters allegedly issued through courier or registered post were actually delivered to the claimant- workman. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, date of dispensing with the services and monthly salary of the workman. As proved from the cross-examination of MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1), the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 1232 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) calendar months preceding his alleged absence from duty, the claimant-workman fulfills the requirement of continuous service as defined in Section 25-B of the ID Act. Once the workman is covered under Section 25- B of the ID Act, then the provision of Section 25-F stands attracted. For better appreciation Section 25-F of the ID Act is reproduced as below :-
"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]."
21. Section 25-F of the ID Act lays down certain conditions which are precedent to retrenchment of workman. In the present case, the management No.1 has taken the plea that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021 in protest to the transfer order of co-workers from Chandigarh to Ahemdabad. Moreover, the plea taken by the management No.1 during its evidence that the workman absented in protest to transfer order of the co-worker and to pressurize the management No.1 to withdraw the transfer order of the co-workers is beyond pleadings. The written statement finds no reference of any alleged transfer order of any of the workmen deployed with the Axis Bank. In this regard MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination stated that in written reply filed by management No.1 to the claim statement, it is nowhere mentioned that the worker was transferred from Chandigarh to some other place. Besides, the management has failed to prove into evidence the transfer order of the co-workers. The contention raised by Learned Representative for the claimant-workman that no letter allegedly issued by the management No.1 was served to the workman, carries force as MW2 (witness of management No.1) when put to cross-examination by workman stated in his statement recorded on 30.11.2023 that some of the letters were issued through courier and some through speed post to the workers. First warning letter was issued through courier to all absentee workers. No delivery report of courier was received from the concerned courier agency. In the claim statement address of the claimant- workman is mentioned as House No.747, Hallomajra, U.T. Chandigarh whereas the letters Exhibits 'MW2/ 6' & 'MW2/7' are issued to the claimant workman on different address i.e. Vill. Dharodi, Teh. Narwana, Distt. Jind (Hr.) & Vill. Dharodi, Teh. Narwana, Distt. Jind (Hr) Walamukhi respectively and the said letters Exhibit 'M2/6' and Exhibit 'M2/7' are received back undelivered with the postal endorsement 'refusal to receive - returned'. Management No.1 in cross-examination of claimant-workman / AW1 did not put his postal / correspondence address to him. Therefore, oral version of MW2 (his voluntary statement) in his cross- examination recorded on 06.12.2023 that the letters were issued to the workman as per his address available on record is insufficient to assume the delivery of letters. The management No.1 did not produce their office record into evidence showing the local address of the claimant-workman.
22. MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination (recorded on 30.11.2023) denied the suggestion as wrong that vide letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' the services of the workman were terminated. To my opinion, the denial on part of MW2 that the management did not intend to terminate the services of the workman by issuing letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' is not acceptable because in his cross- examination MW2 admitted as correct that vide letter Exhibit 'MW2/5' the workman was directed to complete his clearance formalities for full & final settlement. The aforesaid admission on part of MW2 would suggest that the management No.1 intended to effect full & final settlement with the workman, which can be done only when the workman is relieved from service and not during continuity of his service.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 123323. MW2 in para 4 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that due to exigency of work in other locations of respondent No.1 requirement, he as the DGM Banking, transferred the following employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
24. In the present case, first of all the aforesaid plea taken by MW2 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' is beyond pleadings. Secondly, MW2 in para 7 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/ A' deposed that he informed about the mass absenteeism by the applicant and repeated calls received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employees, who are not coming on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff, as Bank work was stuck up due to Cash Sorter not reporting for duty. The aforesaid version of MW2 is also beyond pleadings. Besides Axis Bank / management No.2 in its written statement / reply nowhere mentioned that Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank telephonically informed the management No.1 about any un-authorised absence of the workman from duty. Management No.1 and 2 did not examine Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager in their evidence. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence on record to show the company's requirement at Ahmedabad office of management No.1.
25. If for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021, then also at the most it amounts to misconduct and since the workman fulfills the requirement of Section 25-B of the ID Act, thus management No.1 was bound to comply with the conditions incorporated in Section 25-F of the ID Act. But management No.1 has failed to comply with mandatory conditions as laid down in Section 25-F of the ID Act. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that no charge sheet was served to the workman for his alleged absence from duty. Neither any preliminary inquiry nor any regular domestic inquiry was conducted against the workman. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the worker. From the aforesaid version of MW2, it is established that management No.1 has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman reported in 2014(11) SCC 85 titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Versus Hindalco Industries Limited is applicable to the facts of the present case to an extent. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :-
"Evidently, the above said mandatory procedure has not been followed in the present case.
Further, it has been held by this Court in the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer,
Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, 2010(3) S.C.T. 319 : 2010(5) SCC 497 as under :-
13.... no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity - State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, (1964) 6 SCR 22, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, (1976) 1 SCC 822, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 255, L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, (1982) 1 SCC 645, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Industrial Tribunal, (1980) 4 SCC 443, Gammon India Ltd. V. Niranjan Das, (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) S.C.T. 608 : (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003(2) S.C.T. 296 : (2003) 4 SCC619. This Court has used different expressions for describing the consequence of terminating a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it
1234 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometimes as nullity and
sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold
that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with
the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in
terms of Section 25F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as
nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his services was not
terminated."
26. MW2 Jaspal Singh, witness of Management No.1 / service provider during his cross-examination expressed his readiness to re-join the worker but refused to give him the benefit of continuity of service and back wages. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that we are ready to take in service absentee workers as per availability of vacancy at Chandigarh and nearby stations such as Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Panchkula. MW2 further stated that they are not ready to re-join the workers with continuity of service. They are also not ready to pay back wages for the period of their absence from duty. MW2 denied the suggestion as wrong that re-joining of a workman without continuity of service amounts to fresh appointment. To my opinion, the conditional offer of management No.1 / service provider to re-join the workman as per availability of the vacancy and without the benefits of continuity of service & back wages is unjustified because as discussed above, in this case, the termination of services of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act. In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is a normal rule. The workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service under the same terms & conditions as existed before his termination.
27. As far as back wages are concerned, the claimant-workman has alleged that he remained unemployed during the period from the date of termination till date. On the other hand, none of the manage- ments have taken plea of gainful employment in their respective written statements. However, it is argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5390 of 2019 decided on 11th July 2019 tilted as Chief regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited United India Insurance Company Limited versus Siraj uddin Khan; the principle of 'no work, on pay' applies, In case, the workman is to be reinstated he is not entitled to back wages. To my opinion, the judgment referred (supra) by Learned Representative for management No.1 is not appli- cable to the facts of the present case in view of the judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman tilted as P.G.I. of M.E. and Research Versus Raj Kumar, report in 2001(2) SCC 54. Under the circumstances, the workman is held entitled to 50% back wages.
28. In the view of discussions made above, termination of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act as such the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
29. Accordingly, issue No.1 & 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against management No.1. Issue No.3 is decided against management No.2 and in favour of the workman.
Relief :
30. In the view of foregoing finding on the issues No.1 & 2 above, this industrial dispute is allowed qua management No.1. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Management No.1 is directed to comply with the award within three months from the date of publication of the same in Government Gazette failing which management No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate 8% per annum on the amount of consequential benefits from the date of this award till its actual realisation. Appropriate Government be informed. Copy of this award be also sent to Learned District Judge, Chandigarh in view of Sub-section 10 of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 for onward transmission of the same to concerned Civil Court. File be consigned to the record room.
(Sd.) . . .,
Dated : 14.12.2023.
(JAGDEEP KAUR VIRK) PRESIDING OFFICER, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. UID No. PB0152.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1235CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 18th March, 2024
No. 13/2/91-HII(2)-2024/4447.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947) read with Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment's Notification No. S-11025/21/2003-IR(PL) dated 28.7.2004, the undersigned hereby publish the following award bearing reference No. 73/2021 dated 14.12.2023 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT Chandigarh between :
ASHOK PAL S/O SH. BIKRAAM PAL, H.NO.28, ADARSH NAGAR, ZIRAKPUR, DISTRICT MOHALI. (Workman)
AND
1. M/S CHECKMATE SERVICE PVT. LTD., SCF NO. 128, PHASE-3-B2, DISTRICT MOHALI THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. AXIS BANK LTD., AXIS BANK CURRENCY CHEST, SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER (Management)
AWARD
1. Ashok Pal, workman has presented industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after in short called 'ID Act').
2. Briefly stated the averments of claim statement are that on 11.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed by management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mohali as Cash Sorter. The claimant- workman was deployed at the workplace of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Ltd., Axis Bank Currency Chest, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The claimant-workman remained there in the continuous employment up to 11.02.2021 when his services were illegally & wrongfully terminated by refusing of work. The claimant- workman was drawing `17,000/- per month as wages at the time of termination. On 12.02.2021 the claimant- workman went to attend his normal duty but he was refused work by management No.2 on the pretext that the management No.1 has asked them to refuse work to the worker. No reason of refusal of work was given to the claimant-workman by both the managements. The refusal of work, which amounts to termination, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The management No.1 has also violated Section 25-F of the ID Act. No charge sheet was issued, no inquiry was held and the claimant-workman was not paid retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. Violation of the same makes the termination void. For his reinstatement the claimant-workman served upon the management a demand notice dated 15.02.2021. The management neither denied the contents of the demand notice nor took the claimant-workman back on duty. The Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh was requested for his intervention. Management No.1 appeared before the Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh one time only and thereafter he did not appear before the conciliation on any date fixed for settlement. The termination is illegal, wrongful, motivated against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice. The claimant-workman remained unemployed during the period i.e. from the date of termination to till date. Prayer is made that the claimant-workman be reinstated with continuity of service along with full back wages and without any change in his service condition.
3. On notice, management No.1 contested the claim statement by filing written reply dated 12.11.2022 (filed on 06.12.2022) wherein it is stated that the date of commencement is correct but the answering management did not terminate any employee. It is denied as incorrect that both these managements refused work to the claimant-workman. Since no termination was done, thus retrenchment benefits, charge sheet, inquiry to be held before termination etc. are not applicable. The employees collectively absented and refused to come to work, the matter was taken up with disciplinary action, Checkmate Security Services have made sufficient representation at Labour Department. The applicant's plea that action of the management is illegal, wrongful, motivated, against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice is 1236 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) not acceptable. The claimant-workman's plea of demanding reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and without any change in service condition etc. is not acceptable. No such intentions and acts were initiated by employer but all outstanding efforts were made to get the employee to work as the company had to face huge losses.
4. Management No.2 contested the claim statement by filing separate written statement dated 01.11.2022 wherein preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the claim statement is not legally maintainable as there is privity of contract between claimant-workman and the answering management and the claimant- workman was never hired by the answering management.
5. On merits, it is denied for want of knowledge that on 11.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed as Cash Sorter by management No.1. The answering management had hired the services of management No.1 but appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1 and the answering management has no role to play in it. The alleged the claimant-workman was not on the roll of bank nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by the answering management. No refusal as alleged by the claimant-workman was conveyed by the officials of the answering management. No alleged demand notice was ever served upon the answering management and also no notice was received by the answering management from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant-workman never remained employee or worker of the answering management. Rest of the averments of the claim statement are denied being incorrect and prayer is made that claim statement may be dismissed with cost.
6. The claimant-workman filed rejoinder to the written statement of management No.1 on 17.01.2023 wherein contents of the written statement except admitted facts are denied and averments of claim statement are reiterated. Rejoinder to written statement of management No.2 was not filed.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.03.2023 :-
1. Whether the termination of the workman is illegal ? OPW
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits as prayed for ? OPW 3. Whether the claim statement qua management No.2 is not maintainable? OPM (management No.2)
4. Relief.
8. In evidence, claimant-workman Ashok Pal examined himself as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A'. On 08.09.2023 Learned Representative for the claimant-workman closed the evidence in affirmative.
9. On the other hand, management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Rajpal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh, who tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A'.
10. Management No.1 examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking) of M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali, who tendered into evidence his affidavit vide Exhibit 'MW2/A' along with notary attested copies of documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/8'.
Exhibit 'MW2/1' is authority letter dated 28.03.2019 in Jaspal Singh issued by the Managing Director & Company Secretary of management No.1.
Exhibit 'MW2/2' is aadhar card of Jaspal Singh.
Exhibit MW2/3' is warning letter dated 12.02.2021 issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through courier
Exhibit 'MW2/3-A' is original receipt of DTDC Courier Agencies.
Exhibit 'MW2/4' is absenteeism letter dated 22.02.2021 for not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1237Exhibit 'MW2/4-A' is original postal receipt dated 20.02.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/5' is letter dated 17.03.2021 for final intimation on not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
Exhibit 'MW2/5-A' is original postal receipt dated 19.03.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/6' is original undelivered courier envelop bearing remarks 'out of station P.R.F.' Exhibit 'MW2/7' is original undelivered registered letter accompanied with acknowledgment bearing postal endorsement 'unclaimed'.
Exhibit 'MW2/8' is original undelivered registered letter accompanied with acknowledgment bearing postal endorsement 'unclaimed'.
11. On 16.11.2023 Learned Representative for management No.2 closed the evidence on behalf of management No.2. On 06.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed oral evidence. On 14.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed documentary evidence.
12. I have heard arguments of Learned Representatives for the parties and perused the judicial file.
My issue-wise findings are as below :-
Issue No.1 to 3 :
13. Onus to prove issue No.1 & 2 is on the workman and onus to prove issue No.3 is on management No.2.
14. Under these issues, claimant-workman Ashok Pal examined himself as his own witness as AW1 and vide his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A' deposed the averments of claim statement in toto which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
15. Management No.1 has examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking), who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that he is working with management No.1 as Deputy General Manager (Banking) with Employee Code EMP/COR006558, Office at SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SA S Nagar, Mohali from 06.05.2014 and he is personally aware of the facts of this case. Management No.1 is a company registered as per the provisions of the Company's Act, 1956. Management No.1 is engaged in business of providing security services, cash sorter services across the India to its customers on the basis of requirement and as per contract terms and agreement. Contrary to the workman's claim of illegal termination, he submits that the employment of the claimant-workman was not terminated. Due to exigency of work in the other location of management No.1, he as DGM (Banking) transferred the following four employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company's requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
These employees were transferred to their Ahmedabad office. They were given transfer letters given by hand to report to Checkmate, Ahmedabad Office under his instructions (as per company's requirement) on 11.02.2021 sent through Indian post RPAD. These letters were given in person which they refused to accept. They were briefed regarding the transfer, which they refused to accept, return letter with remarks of refusal. The transfer letters were displayed on the notice board of the Axis Bank on same day i.e. on 11.02.2021. On 12.02.2021, he was on leave and was attending function at his home town, when he received a call from Mr. Ritesh Kumar - Branch Manager, Axis Bank, stating that no employee of Checkmate Services had reported for duty and when they and he had tried to contact their employee, they were absent. The claimant-workman stated that they will not come to work and all were not willing to come for duty any more. He informed about the mass absenteeism by the claimant-workman and repeated calls were received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employee who have not 1238 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) come on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff as bank work stuck up due to cash sorter not reporting for duty. He kept on calling absentee employees from his phone but his phone was not picked by any of the absent employees for the next 2 days i.e. 12.02.2021 to 14.02.2021. On resuming his office on 15.02.2021, he himself again tried to contact the absconding employees, only Mr. Ravi Kumar, EMP/CHD05592 and Mr. Pankaj Kataria, EMP/CHD/03936 picked the call and agreed to come to Mohali Office SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali. On next day i.e. 16.02.2021 he himself tried to convince both the absconded employees to resume their duties as the bank officials were putting lot of pressure and the work stoppage had very negative impact on the bank services and their reputation and high penalty clause in the agreement. Both the employees Mr. Ravi Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kataria were ready to understand and joined the duties but stated that other fellow employees had threatened them not to join the duty. Meanwhile they have appointed new staff in place of absconded employees to fill the bank requirement and their repetition as service provider as well to avoid high penalty of non-providing contractual staff as per agreement. They have also approached the absconded staff to join duty at the other place. They have requirement at Ahemdabad, for that they had sent the letter through RP/AD post letter dated 11.02.2021 as well sent the absenteeism letters on 22.02.2021 and final letter on 17.03.2021 to the claimant-workman to join duty as his services has not been terminated nor any violation of his appointment services conditions. He asserts that the management has never terminated the services of the claimant-workman. On the contrary the management has provided multiple opportunities to the claimant-workman to re-join duty even after a mass absconding incident incurred. The claimant-workman however failed to respond or re-join and instead engaged in mass absconding without any prior intimation. This action appears to be an attempt to harass both the managements to coercive tactics by the claimant-workman. The management remains willing to offer employment as there has been no formal termination of services. Consequently, there is no basis for claims related to back wages or any other form of compensation, given that the service has not been terminated. MW2 supported his oral version with documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/8'.
16. The management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Raj Pal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A' wherein he deposed that the present alleged claim filed by the claimant against management No.2 is legally maintainable as there is no privity of contract between claimant and management No.2 and the claimant was never hired by management No.2. Management No.2 had hired the services of management No.1 but the appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1. Management No.2 had no role to play in it. The alleged claimant was not on the roll of the bank, nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by management No.2. No notice as alleged was ever served upon management No.2 and also no notice was received by management No.2 from the office of Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant never remained employee or worker of management No.2.
17. From the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties it comes out that undisputedly the claimant-workman was appointed on 11.06.2016 as Cash Sorter by management No.1 and was deployed at the work place of management No.2. In this regard, AW1 when to put to cross-examination by management No.2 stated that Axis Bank / management No.2 did not issue him any appointment letter and termination letter / order. He was deployed with the Axis Bank / management No.2 by M/s Checkmate i.e. management No.1. MW1 (witness of management No.2) when to put to cross-examination by the workman admitted as correct that the Axis Bank has contract with the Checkmate Services for providing the manpower. MW1 admitted as correct that the Checkmate Services provided about 15 workers including the claimant of the present case for deployment with Chandigarh Branch of Axis Bank. MW1 stated that bank was not maintaining the attendance of contractual workers. The supervisor of Checkmate was maintaining their attendance. The bank had not been supervising the disbursement of wages and provident fund etc. of the contractual workers. MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1) when to put cross- examination by the workman stated that the agreement of management No.1 with the Axis Bank Ltd. / management No.2 was at central level and there was no local agreement. Under the said agreement, management No.1 provided 18 workers to management No.2 around year 2016. From the above-mentioned version of AW1, MW1 and MW2 it is duly established on record that management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is service provider, who under the contract has provided security services and Cash Sorter services to management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh and the claimant-workman was deployed by the management No.1 at the work place of management No.2 as a Cash Sorter. Since management No.1 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1239 maintained the record of attendance and supervision of work of claimant-workman through its Supervisor, thus the claimant-workman was under the direct employment of management No.1 and was a contractual worker deployed with management No.2. There is no direct relationship of employer-employee between management No.2 and claimant-workman. Since management No.2 has hired the services of claimant-workman from its service provider i.e. management No.1, therefore, management No.2 was necessary party, being principal employer, and the claim qua management No.2 is duly maintainable.
18. Admittedly, the authority to appoint, transfer and terminate the contractual employee (herein claimant-workman) was with the service provider i.e. management No.1. Learned Representative for the claimant-workman argued that the claimant-workman remained in continuous employment of the management No.1 from the date of appointment i.e. 11.06.2016 up to 11.02.2021, thus completed 240 days of continuous service in 12 calendar months preceding termination of his services (service being verbally terminated on 12.02.2021). The claimant-workman has alleged that his last drawn wages were `17,000/- per month. In this regard MW2 (witness of management No.1) was put to cross-examination by workman stated that there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, amount of monthly salary and the date of dispensing with of their services. MW2 further stated that all the workers including the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding their absence from duty.
19. Management No.1 has taken the plea that 15 contractual workers were deployed with management No.2. On 11.02.2021, out of 15 contractual workers, 4 workers namely Ravinder, Joginder Pal, Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar were transferred to Ahmedabad. 4 workers who were transferred refused to accept the transfer letter and refused to join at Ahmedabad. The transfer-cum-movement order was also affixed on the notice board of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Limited. In order to put pressure upon the management No.1 to cancel the transfer order of four employees all 15 contractual workers collectively absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021. After extensive follow-ups, 2 workers returned to duty with the same employment terms & conditions whereas the remaining 13 including the workman of the present case did not resume duty. It is further argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that M/s Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. has not terminated the service of any of the workman in any manner. Management No.1 has followed due procedure issuing absenteeism letters and reminders, emphasising the company's intent for workman to resume duty but he refused to receive. Management No.1 also issued warning letter dated 12.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/3' through courier vide receipt Exhibit 'MW2/3A', issued another absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/4' vide postal receipt Exhibit 'MW2/4A' and final intimation for not reporting on duty vide letter dated 17.03.2021 Exhibit 'MW2/5' through registered post vide Exhibit 'MW2/5A'. Despite issuance of various letters, the claimant-workman did not join back the duty, thus, the claimant-workman himself abandoned the job, though his services were never terminated by management No.1. The workman failed to report to his duty at the work place without any prior notice or explanation which is a clear violation of company's policy and established work expectations. The employer has the inherent right to manage its work force including making decisions regarding re-location. Management No.1 has acted in accordance with its established policies and procedures which were communicated to all the employees by all means to join duty.
20. On the other hand, Learned Representative for the workman contended that no letter / letters as alleged by management No.1 were ever received by the claimant-workman. There is nothing on record to show that the letters allegedly issued through courier or registered post were actually delivered to the claimant- workman. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, date of dispensing with the services and monthly salary of the workman. As proved from the cross-examination of MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1), the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his alleged absence from duty, the claimant-workman fulfills the requirement of continuous service as defined in Section 25-B of the ID Act. Once the workman is covered under Section 25- B of the ID Act, then the provision of Section 25-F stands attracted. For better appreciation Section 25-F of the ID Act is reproduced as below :-
"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;
1240 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)(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]."
21. Section 25-F of the ID Act lays down certain conditions which are precedent to retrenchment of workman. In the present case, the management No.1 has taken the plea that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021 in protest to the transfer order of co-workers from Chandigarh to Ahmedabad. Moreover, the plea taken by the management No.1 during its evidence that the workman absented in protest to transfer order of the co-worker and to pressurize the management No.1 to withdraw the transfer order of the co-workers is beyond pleadings. The written statement finds no reference of any alleged transfer order of any of the workmen deployed with the Axis Bank. In this regard MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination stated that in written reply filed by management No.1 to the claim statement, it is nowhere mentioned that the worker was transferred from Chandigarh to some other place. Besides, the management has failed to prove into evidence the transfer order of the co-workers.
22. As far as the contention raised by Learned Representative for the claimant-workman that no letter allegedly issued by the management No.1 was served to the workman, is concerned, AW1 when put to cross-examination by management No.1 stated that he has not received any letter from the management No.1. As per the claim statement, the address of the claimant-workman is House No.28, Adarsh Nagar, Zirakpur, District Mohali. Warning letter dated 12.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/3' issued through courier vide receipt Exhibit 'MW2/3A' reveals that it was issued on the same address but there is no delivery report of courier. The registered post Exhibit 'MW2/6' & Exhibit 'MW2/7' bearing postal receipt dated 19.03.2021 & 20.02.2021 respectively and another courier Exhibit 'MW2/8' bearing receipt dated 16.02.2021 are issued on the correct address of the workman which were received back undelivered with the postal endorsement of un-claimed and with courier endorsement 'out of station P.R.F. / shifted'. Even if, the letters of absenteeism or warning letter were served to the workman, in that situation also if the workman fails to report on duty, management No.1 / employer was required to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the workman. But the management No.1 / employer did not initiate any kind of disciplinary proceedings against the workman either by issuing show cause notice or charge sheet. Moreover, management No.1 in cross-examination of claimant-workman / AW1 did not put his postal / correspondence address to him. Therefore, oral version of MW2 (his voluntary statement) in his cross-examination recorded on 06.12.2023 that the letters were issued to the workman as per his address available on record, is insufficient to assume the delivery of letters. The management No.1 did not produce their office record into evidence showing the available local address of the claimant-workman.
23. MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination (recorded on 30.11.2023) denied the suggestion as wrong that vide letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' the services of the workman were terminated. To my opinion, the denial on part of MW2 that the management did not intend to terminate the services of the workman by issuing letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' is not acceptable because in his cross- examination MW2 admitted as correct that vide letter Exhibit 'MW2/5' the workman was directed to complete his clearance formalities for full & final settlement. The aforesaid admission on part of MW2 would suggest that the managementNo.1 intended to effect full & final settlement with the workman, which can be done only when the workman is relieved from service and not during continuity of his service.
24. MW2 in para 4 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that due to exigency of work in other locations of respondent No.1 requirement, he as the DGM Banking, transferred the following employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 124125. In the present case, first of all the aforesaid plea taken by MW2 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' is beyond pleadings. Secondly, MW2 in para 7 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that he informed about the mass absenteeism by the applicant and repeated calls received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employees, who are not coming on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff, as Bank work was stuck up due to Cash Sorter not reporting for duty. The aforesaid version of MW2 is also beyond pleadings. Besides Axis Bank / management No.2 in its written statement / reply nowhere mentioned that Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank telephonically informed the management No.1 about any un-authorised absence of the workman from duty. Management No.1 and 2 did not examine Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager in their evidence. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence on record to show the company's requirement at Ahmedabad office of management No.1.
26. If for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021, then also at the most it amounts to misconduct and since the workman fulfills the requirement of Section 25-B of the ID Act, thus management No.1 was bound to comply with the conditions incorporated in Section 25-F of the ID Act. But management No.1 has failed to comply with mandatory conditions as laid down in Section 25-F of the ID Act. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that no charge sheet was served to the workman for his alleged absence from duty. Neither any preliminary inquiry nor any regular domestic inquiry was conducted against the workman. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the worker. From the aforesaid version of MW2, it is established that management No.1 has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman reported in 2014(11) SCC 85 titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Versus Hindalco Industries Limited is applicable to the facts of the present case to an extent. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :-
"Evidently, the above said mandatory procedure has not been followed in the present case.
Further, it has been held by this Court in the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer,
Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, 2010(3) S.C.T. 319 : 2010(5) SCC 497 as under:-
13.... no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity - State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, (1964) 6 SCR 22, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, (1976) 1 SCC 822, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 255, L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, (1982) 1 SCC 645, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Industrial Tribunal, (1980) 4 SCC 443, Gammon India Ltd. V. Niranjan Das, (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) S.C.T. 608 : (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003(2) S.C.T. 296 : (2003) 4 SCC619. This Court has used different expressions for describing the consequence of terminating a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometimes as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in
1242 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)terms of Section 25F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as
nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his services was not
terminated."
27. MW2 Jaspal Singh, witness of Management No.1 / service provider during his cross-examination expressed his readiness to re-join the worker but refused to give him the benefit of continuity of service and back wages. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that we are ready to take in service absentee workers as per availability of vacancy at Chandigarh and nearby stations such as Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Panchkula. MW2 further stated that they are not ready to re-join the workers with continuity of service. They are also not ready to pay back wages for the period of their absence from duty. MW2 denied the suggestion as wrong that re-joining of a workman without continuity of service amounts to fresh appointment. To my opinion, the conditional offer of management No.1 / service provider to re-join the workman as per availability of the vacancy and without the benefits of continuity of service & back wages is unjustified because as discussed above, in this case, the termination of services of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act. In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is a normal rule. The workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service under the same terms & conditions as existed before his termination.
28. As far as back wages are concerned, the claimant-workman has alleged that he remained unemployed during the period from the date of termination till date. On the other hand, none of the managements have taken plea of gainful employment in their respective written statements. However, it is argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5390 of 2019 decided on 11th July 2019 tilted as Chief regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited United India Insurance Company Limited versus Siraj uddin Khan;
the principle of 'no work, on pay' applies, In case, the workman is to be reinstated he is not entitled to back wages. To my opinion, the judgment referred (supra) by Learned Representative for management No.1 is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman tilted as P.G.I. of M.E. and Research Versus Raj Kumar, report in 2001(2) SCC 54. Under the circumstances, the workman is held entitled to 50% back wages.
29. In the view of discussions made above, termination of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act as such the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
30. Accordingly, issue No.1 & 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against management No.1. Issue No.3 is decided against management No.2 and in favour of the workman.
Relief :
31. In the view of foregoing finding on the issues No.1 & 2 above, this industrial dispute is allowed qua management No.1. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Management No.1 is directed to comply with the award within three months from the date of publication of the same in Government Gazette failing which management No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate 8% per annum on the amount of consequential benefits from the date of this award till its actual realisation. Appropriate Government be informed. Copy of this award be also sent to Learned District Judge, Chandigarh in view of Sub-section 10 of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 for onward transmission of the same to concerned Civil Court. File be consigned to the record room.
(Sd.) . . .,
Dated : 14.12.2023.
(JAGDEEP KAUR VIRK) PRESIDING OFFICER, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. UID No. PB0152.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1243CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 18th March, 2024
No. 13/2/82-HII(2)-2024/4464.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947) read with Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment's Notification No. S-11025/21/2003-IR(PL) dated 28.7.2004, the undersigned hereby publish the following award bearing reference No. 77/2021 dated 14.12.2023 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT Chandigarh between :
MANOHAR LAL S/O SH. MEHAL SINGH, HOUSE NO.307, VILLAGE BEHLANA, CHANDIGARH. (Workman)
AND
1. M/S CHECKMATE SERVICE PVT. LTD., SCF NO. 128, PHASE-3-B2, DISTRICT MOHALI THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. AXIS BANK LTD., AXIS BANK CURRENCY CHEST, SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER (Management)
AWARD
1. Manohar Lal, workman has presented industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after in short called 'ID Act').
2. Briefly stated the averments of claim statement are that on 11.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed by management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mohali as Cash Sorter. The claimant- workman was deployed at the workplace of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Ltd., Axis Bank Currency Chest, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The claimant-workman remained there in the continuous employment up to 11.02.2021 when his services were illegally & wrongfully terminated by refusing of work. The claimant- workman was drawing `17,000/- per month as wages at the time of termination. On 12.02.2021 the claimant- workman went to attend his normal duty but he was refused work by management No.2 on the pretext that the management No.1 has asked them to refuse work to the worker. No reason of refusal of work was given to the claimant-workman by both the managements. The refusal of work, which amounts to termination, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The management No.1 has also violated Section 25-F of the ID Act. No charge sheet was issued, no inquiry was held and the claimant-workman was not paid retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. Violation of the same makes the termination void. For his reinstatement the claimant-workman served upon the management a demand notice dated 15.02.2021. The management neither denied the contents of the demand notice nor took the claimant-workman back on duty. The Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh was requested for his intervention. Management No.1 appeared before the Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh one time only and thereafter he did not appear before the conciliation on any date fixed for settlement. The termination is illegal, wrongful, motivated against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice. The claimant-workman remained unemployed during the period i.e. from the date of termination to till date. Prayer is made that the claimant-workman be reinstated with continuity of service along with full back wages and without any change in his service condition.
3. On notice, management No.1 contested the claim statement by filing written reply dated 12.11.2022 (filed on 06.12.2022) wherein it is stated that the date of commencement is correct but the answering management did not terminate any employee. It is denied as incorrect that both these managements refused work to the claimant-workman. Since no termination was done, thus retrenchment benefits, charge sheet, inquiry to be held before termination etc. are not applicable. The employees collectively absented and refused to come to work, the matter was taken up with disciplinary action, Checkmate Security Services have made sufficient representation at Labour Department. The applicant's plea that action of the management is illegal, wrongful, motivated, against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice is 1244 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) not acceptable. The claimant-workman's plea of demanding reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and without any change in service condition etc. is not acceptable. No such intentions and acts were initiated by employer but all outstanding efforts were made to get the employee to work as the company had to face huge losses.
4. Management No.2 contested the claim statement by filing separate written statement dated 01.11.2022 (filed on 01.11.2022) wherein preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the claim statement is not legally maintainable as there is privity of contract between claimant-workman and the answering management and the claimant-workman was never hired by the answering management.
5. On merits, it is denied for want of knowledge that on 11.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed as Cash Sorter by management No.1. The answering management had hired the services of management No.1 but appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1 and the answering management has no role to play in it. The alleged the claimant-workman was not on the roll of bank nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by the answering management. No refusal as alleged by the claimant-workman was conveyed by the officials of the answering management. No alleged demand notice was ever served upon the answering management and also no notice was received by the answering management from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant-workman never remained employee or worker of the answering management. Rest of the averments of the claim statement are denied being incorrect and prayer is made that claim statement may be dismissed with cost.
6. The claimant-workman filed rejoinder to the written statement of management No.1 on 17.01.2023 wherein contents of the written statement except admitted facts are denied and averments of claim statement are reiterated. Rejoinder to written statement of management No.2 was not filed.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.03.2023 :-
1. Whether the termination of the workman is illegal ? OPW
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits as prayed for ? OPW
3. Whether the claim statement qua management No.2 is not maintainable? OPM (management No.2)
4. Relief.
8. In evidence, claimant-workman Manohar Lal examined himself as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A'. On 08.09.2023 Learned Representative for the claimant-workman closed the evidence in affirmative.
9. On the other hand, management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Rajpal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh, who tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A'.
10. Management No.1 examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking) of M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali, who tendered into evidence his affidavit vide Exhibit 'MW2/A' along with notary attested copies of documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/6'.
Exhibit 'MW2/1' is authority letter dated 28.03.2019 in Jaspal Singh issued by the Managing Director & Company Secretary of management No.1.
Exhibit 'MW2/2' is aadhar card of Jaspal Singh.
Exhibit MW2/3' is warning letter dated 12.02.2021 issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through courier
Exhibit 'MW2/3-A' is original receipt of DTDC Courier Agencies.
Exhibit 'MW2/4' is absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 for not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1245Exhibit 'MW2/4-A' is original postal receipt dated 20.02.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/5' is letter dated 17.03.2021 for final intimation on not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
Exhibit 'MW2/5-A' is original postal receipt dated 19.03.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/6' is original undelivered courier envelop bearing remarks 'R to NSR'.
11. On 16.11.2023 Learned Representative for management No.2 closed the evidence on behalf of management No.2. On 06.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed oral evidence. On 14.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed documentary evidence.
12. I have heard arguments of Learned Representatives for the parties and perused the judicial file.
My issue-wise findings are as below :-
Issue No. 1 to 3 :
13. Onus to prove issue No.1 & 2 is on the workman and onus to prove issue No.3 is on management No.2.
14. Under these issues, claimant-workman Manohar Lal examined himself as his own witness as AW1 and vide his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A' deposed the averments of claim statement in toto which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
15. Management No.1 has examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking), who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that he is working with management No.1 as Deputy General Manager (Banking) with Employee Code EMP/COR006558, Office at SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SA S Nagar, Mohali from 06.05.2014 and he is personally aware of the facts of this case. Management No.1 is a company registered as per the provisions of the Company's Act, 1956. Management No.1 is engaged in business of providing security services, cash sorter services across the India to its customers on the basis of requirement and as per contract terms and agreement. Contrary to the workman's claim of illegal termination, he submits that the employment of the claimant-workman was not terminated. Due to exigency of work in the other location of management No.1, he as DGM (Banking) transferred the following four employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company's requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
These employees were transferred to their Ahmedabad office. They were given transfer letters given by hand to report to Checkmate, Ahmedabad Office under his instructions (as per company's requirement) on 11.02.2021 through Indian post RPAD. These letters were given in person which they refused to accept. They were briefed regarding the transfer, which they refused to accept, return letter with remarks of refusal. The transfer letters were displayed on the notice board of the Axis Bank on same day i.e. on 11.02.2021. On 12.02.2021, he was on leave and was attending function at his home town, when he received a call from Mr. Ritesh Kumar - Branch Manager, Axis Bank, stating that no employee of Checkmate Services had reported for duty and when they and he had tried to contact their employee, they were absent. The claimant-workman stated that they will not come to work and all were not willing to come for duty any more. He informed about the mass absenteeism by the claimant-workman and repeated calls were received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employee who have not come on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff as bank work stuck up due to Cash Sorter not reporting for duty. He kept on calling absentee employees from his phone but his phone was not picked by any of the absent employees for the next 2 days i.e. 12.02.2021 to 14.02.2021. On resuming his office on 15.02.2021, he himself again tried to contact the absconding employees, only Mr. Ravi Kumar, EMP/CHD05592 and Mr. Pankaj Kataria, EMP/CHD/03936 picked the call and agreed to come to 1246 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) Mohali Office SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali. On next day i.e. 16.02.2021 he himself tried to convince both the absconded employees to resume their duties as the bank officials were putting lot of pressure and the work stoppage had very negative impact on the bank services and their reputation and high penalty clause in the agreement. Both the employees Mr. Ravi Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kataria were ready to understand and joined the duties but stated that other fellow employees had threatened them not to join the duty. Meanwhile they have appointed new staff in place of absconded employees to fill the bank requirement and their repetition as service provider as well to avoid high penalty of non-providing contractual staff as per agreement. Also they have approached the absconded staff to join duty at the other place. They have requirement at Ahemdabad, for that they had sent the letter through RP/AD post letter dated 11.02.2021 as well sent the absenteeism letters-cum-not reporting on duty letter on 18.02.2021 and final opportunity letter on 17.03.2021 to the claimant- workman to join duty as his services has not been terminated nor any violation of his appointment services conditions. He asserts that the management has never terminated the services of the claimant-workman. On the contrary the management has provided multiple opportunities to the claimant-workman to re-join duty even after a mass absconding incident incurred. The claimant-workman however failed to respond or re- join and instead engaged in mass absconding without any prior intimation. This action appears to be an attempt to harass both the managements to coercive tactics by the claimant-workman. The management remains willing to offer employment as there has been no formal termination of services. Consequently, there is no basis for claims related to back wages or any other form of compensation, given that the service has not been terminated. MW2 supported his oral version with documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/6'.
16. The management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Raj Pal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A' wherein he deposed that the present alleged claim filed by the claimant against management No.2 is legally maintainable as there is no privity of contract between claimant and management No.2 and the claimant was never hired by management No.2. Management No.2 had hired the services of management No.1 but the appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1. Management No.2 had no role to play in it. The alleged claimant was not on the roll of the bank, nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by management No.2. No notice as alleged was ever served upon management No.2 and also no notice was received by management No.2 from the office of Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant never remained employee or worker of management No.2.
17. From the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties it comes out that undisputedly the claimant-workman was appointed on 11.06.2016 as Cash Sorter by management No.1 and was deployed at the work place of management No.2. In this regard, AW1 when to put to cross-examination by management No.2 stated that Axis Bank / management No.2 did not issue him any appointment letter and termination letter / order. He was deployed with the Axis Bank / management No.2 by M/s Checkmate i.e. management No.1. MW1 (witness of management No.2) when to put to cross-examination by the workman admitted as correct that the Axis Bank has contract with the Checkmate Services for providing the manpower. MW1 admitted as correct that the Checkmate Services provided about 15 workers including the claimant of the present case for deployment with Chandigarh Branch of Axis Bank. MW1 stated that bank was not maintaining the attendance of contractual workers. The supervisor of Checkmate was maintaining their attendance. The bank had not been supervising the disbursement of wages and provident fund etc. of the contractual workers. MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1) when to put cross- examination by the workman stated that the agreement of management No.1 with the Axis Bank Ltd. / management No.2 was at central level and there was no local agreement. Under the said agreement, management No.1 provided 18 workers to management No.2 around year 2016. From the above-mentioned version of AW1, MW1 and MW2 it is duly established on record that management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is service provider, who under the contract has provided security services and Cash Sorter services to management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh and the claimant-workman was deployed by the management No.1 at the work place of management No.2 as a Cash Sorter. Since management No.1 maintained the record of attendance and supervision of work of claimant-workman through its Supervisor, thus the claimant-workman was under the direct employment of management No.1 and was a contractual worker deployed with management No.2. There is no direct relationship of employer-employee between management CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1247 No.2 and claimant-workman. Since management No.2 has hired the services of claimant-workman from its service provider i.e. management No.1, therefore, management No.2 was necessary party, being principal employer, and the claim qua management No.2 is duly maintainable.
18. Admittedly, the authority to appoint, transfer and terminate the contractual employee (herein claimant-workman) was with the service provider i.e. management No.1. Learned Representative for the claimant-workman argued that the claimant-workman remained in continuous employment of the management No.1 from the date of appointment i.e. 11.06.2016 up to 11.02.2021, thus completed 240 days of continuous service in 12 calendar months preceding termination of his services (service being verbally terminated on 12.02.2021). The claimant-workman has alleged that his last drawn wages were `17,000/- per month. In this regard MW2 (witness of management No.1) was put to cross-examination by workman stated that there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, amount of monthly salary and the date of dispensing with of their services. MW2 further stated that all the workers including the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding their absence from duty.
19. Management No.1 has taken the plea that 15 contractual workers were deployed with management No.2. On 11.02.2021, out of 15 contractual workers, 4 workers namely Ravinder, Joginder Pal, Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar were transferred to Ahmedabad. 4 workers who were transferred refused to accept the transfer letter and refused to join at Ahmedabad. The transfer-cum-movement order was also affixed on the notice board of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Limited. In order to put pressure upon the management No.1 to cancel the transfer order of four employees all 15 contractual workers collectively absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021. After extensive follow-ups, 2 workers returned to duty with the same employment terms & conditions whereas the remaining 13 including the workman of the present case did not resume duty. It is further argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that M/s Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. has not terminated the service of any of the workman in any manner. Management No.1 has followed due procedure issuing absenteeism letters and reminders, emphasising the company's intent for workman to resume duty but he refused to receive. Management No.1 also issued warning letter dated 12.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/3' through courier vide receipt Exhibit 'MW2/3A', issued another absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/4' vide postal receipt Exhibit 'MW2/4A' and final intimation for not reporting on duty vide letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' through registered post vide Exhibit 'MW2/5A'. Despite issuance of various letters, the claimant-workman did not join back the duty, thus, the claimant-workman himself abandoned the job, though his services were never terminated by management No.1. The workman failed to report to his duty at the work place without any prior notice or explanation which is a clear violation of company's policy and established work expectations. The employer has the inherent right to manage its work force including making decisions regarding re-location. Management No.1 has acted in accordance with its established policies and procedures which were communicated to all the employees by all means to join duty.
20. On the other hand, Learned Representative for the workman contended that no letter / letters as alleged by management No.1 were ever received by the claimant-workman. There is nothing on record to show that the letters allegedly issued through courier or registered post were actually delivered to the claimant- workman. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, date of dispensing with the services and monthly salary of the workman. As proved from the cross-examination of MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1), the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his alleged absence from duty, the claimant-workman fulfills the requirement of continuous service as defined in Section 25-B of the ID Act. Once the workman is covered under Section 25- B of the ID Act, then the provision of Section 25-F stands attracted. For better appreciation Section 25-F of the ID Act is reproduced as below :-
"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;
1248 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)(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]."
21. Section 25-F of the ID Act lays down certain conditions which are precedent to retrenchment of workman. In the present case, the management No.1 has taken the plea that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021 in protest to the transfer order of co-workers from Chandigarh to Ahmedabad. Moreover, the plea taken by the management No.1 during its evidence that the workman absented in protest to transfer order of the co-worker and to pressurize the management No.1 to withdraw the transfer order of the co-workers is beyond pleadings. The written statement finds no reference of any alleged transfer order of any of the workmen deployed with the Axis Bank. In this regard MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination stated that in written reply filed by management No.1 to the claim statement, it is nowhere mentioned that the worker was transferred from Chandigarh to some other place. Besides, the management has failed to prove into evidence the transfer order of the co-workers. The contention raised by Learned Representative for the claimant-workman that no letter allegedly issued by the management No.1 was served to the workman, carries force as MW2 (witness of management No.1) when put to cross-examination by workman stated in his statement recorded on 30.11.2023 that some of the letters were issued through courier and some through speed post to the workers. First warning letter was issued through courier to all absentee workers. No delivery report of courier was received from the concerned courier agency. In the claim statement address of the claimant- workman is mentioned as House No.307, Village Behlana, Chandigarh whereas the letter Exhibits 'MW2/3', MW2/4', 'MW2/5' and 'MW2/6' are issued to the claimant workman on different address i.e. Village Sanan Khera, PO Golwan, Teh. Ladbharol, Distt. Mandi (HP) and the said letter Exhibit 'M2/6' are received back undelivered with the courier agency 'R to NSR'. Management No.1 in cross-examination of claimant-workman / AW1 did not put his postal / correspondence address to him. Therefore, oral version of MW2 (his voluntary statement) in his cross-examination recorded on 06.12.2023 that the letters were issued to the workman as per his address available on record is insufficient to assume the delivery of letters. The management No.1 did not produce their office record into evidence showing the local address of the claimant-workman.
22. MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination (recorded on 30.11.2023) denied the suggestion as wrong that vide letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' the services of the workman were terminated. To my opinion, the denial on part of MW2 that the management did not intend to terminate the services of the workman by issuing letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' is not acceptable because in his cross- examination MW2 admitted as correct that vide letter Exhibit 'MW2/5' the workman was directed to complete his clearance formalities for full & final settlement. The aforesaid admission on part of MW2 would suggest that the management No.1 intended to effect full & final settlement with the workman, which can be done only when the workman is relieved from service and not during continuity of his service.
23. MW2 in para 4 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that due to exigency of work in other locations of respondent No.1 requirement, he as the DGM Banking, transferred the following employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
24. In the present case, first of all the aforesaid plea taken by MW2 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' is beyond pleadings. Secondly, MW2 in para 7 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that he informed about the mass absenteeism by the applicant and repeated calls received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employees, CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1249 who are not coming on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff, as Bank work was stuck up due to Cash Sorter not reporting for duty. The aforesaid version of MW2 is also beyond pleadings. Besides Axis Bank / management No.2 in its written statement / reply nowhere mentioned that Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank telephonically informed the management No.1 about any un-authorised absence of the workman from duty. Management No.1 and 2 did not examine Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager in their evidence. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence on record to show the company's requirement at Ahmedabad office of management No.1.
25. If for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021, then also at the most it amounts to misconduct and since the workman fulfills the requirement of Section 25-B of the ID Act, thus management No.1 was bound to comply with the conditions incorporated in Section 25-F of the ID Act. But management No.1 has failed to comply with mandatory conditions as laid down in Section 25-F of the ID Act. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that no charge sheet was served to the workman for his alleged absence from duty. Neither any preliminary inquiry nor any regular domestic inquiry was conducted against the workman. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the worker. From the aforesaid version of MW2, it is established that management No.1 has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman reported in 2014(11) SCC 85 titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Versus Hindalco Industries Limited is applicable to the facts of the present case to an extent. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :-
"Evidently, the above said mandatory procedure has not been followed in the present case.
Further, it has been held by this Court in the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer,
Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, 2010(3) S.C.T. 319 : 2010(5) SCC 497 as under:-
13.... no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity - State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, (1964) 6 SCR 22, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, (1976) 1 SCC 822, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 255, L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, (1982) 1 SCC 645, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Industrial Tribunal, (1980) 4 SCC 443, Gammon India Ltd. V. Niranjan Das, (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) S.C.T. 608 : (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003(2) S.C.T. 296 : (2003) 4 SCC619. This Court has used different expressions for describing the consequence of terminating a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometimes as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his services was not terminated."
1250 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)26. MW2 Jaspal Singh, witness of Management No.1 / service provider during his cross-examination expressed his readiness to re-join the worker but refused to give him the benefit of continuity of service and back wages. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that we are ready to take in service absentee workers as per availability of vacancy at Chandigarh and nearby stations such as Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Panchkula. MW2 further stated that they are not ready to re-join the workers with continuity of service. They are also not ready to pay back wages for the period of their absence from duty. MW2 denied the suggestion as wrong that re-joining of a workman without continuity of service amounts to fresh appointment. To my opinion, the conditional offer of management No.1 / service provider to re-join the workman as per availability of the vacancy and without the benefits of continuity of service & back wages is unjustified because as discussed above, in this case, the termination of services of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act. In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is a normal rule. The workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service under the same terms & conditions as existed before his termination.
27. As far as back wages are concerned, the claimant-workman has alleged that he remained unemployed during the period from the date of termination till date. On the other hand, none of the managements have taken plea of gainful employment in their respective written statements. However, it is argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5390 of 2019 decided on 11th July 2019 tilted as Chief regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited United India Insurance Company Limited versus Siraj uddin Khan;
the principle of 'no work, on pay' applies, In case, the workman is to be reinstated he is not entitled to back wages. To my opinion, the judgment referred (supra) by Learned Representative for management No.1 is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman tilted as P.G.I. of M.E. and Research Versus Raj Kumar, report in 2001(2) SCC 54. Under the circumstances, the workman is held entitled to 50% back wages.
28. In the view of discussions made above, termination of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act as such the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
29. Accordingly, issue No.1 & 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against management No.1. Issue No.3 is decided against management No.2 and in favour of the workman.
Relief :
30. In the view of foregoing finding on the issues No.1 & 2 above, this industrial dispute is allowed qua management No.1. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Management No.1 is directed to comply with the award within three months from the date of publication of the same in Government Gazette failing which management No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate 8% per annum on the amount of consequential benefits from the date of this award till its actual realisation. Appropriate Government be informed. Copy of this award be also sent to Learned District Judge, Chandigarh in view of Sub-section 10 of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 for onward transmission of the same to concerned Civil Court. File be consigned to the record room.
(Sd.) . . .,
Dated : 14.12.2023.
(JAGDEEP KAUR VIRK) PRESIDING OFFICER, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. UID No. PB0152.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1251CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 18th March, 2024
No. 13/2/83-HII(2)-2024/4453.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947) read with Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment's Notification No. S-11025/21/2003-IR(PL) dated 28.7.2004, the undersigned hereby publish the following award bearing reference No. 80/2021 dated 14.12.2023 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT Chandigarh between :
MAHAVIR SINGH S/O SH. RATTAN SINGH, H.NO.1055, SECTOR 56, CHANDIGARH. (Workman)
AND
1. M/S CHECKMATE SERVICE PVT. LTD., SCF NO. 128, PHASE-3-B2, DISTRICT MOHALI THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. AXIS BANK LTD., AXIS BANK CURRENCY CHEST, SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER (Management)
AWARD
1. Mahavir Singh, workman has presented industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after in short called 'ID Act').
2. Briefly stated the averments of claim statement are that on 11.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed by management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mohali as Cash Sorter. The claimant- workman was deployed at the workplace of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Ltd., Axis Bank Currency Chest, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The claimant-workman remained there in the continuous employment up to 11.02.2021 when his services were illegally & wrongfully terminated by refusing of work. The claimant- workman was drawing `17,000/- per month as wages at the time of termination. On 12.02.2021 the claimant- workman went to attend his normal duty but he was refused work by management No.2 on the pretext that the management No.1 has asked them to refuse work to the worker. No reason of refusal of work was given to the claimant-workman by both the managements. The refusal of work, which amounts to termination, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The management No.1 has also violated Section 25-F of the ID Act. No charge sheet was issued, no inquiry was held and the claimant-workman was not paid retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. Violation of the same makes the termination void. For his reinstatement the claimant-workman served upon the management a demand notice dated 15.02.2021. After receiving the demand notice dated 15.02.2021, the management sent a letter dated 17.03.2021 to the claimant-workman, which was received by him on 21.03.2021 on the subject 'Final Intimation on not reporting on duty'. In the letter the management alleged that the claimant-workman is un-authorised absent from duty from 12.02.2021. The services of the workman were terminated and he was asked to contact HR for completion of full & final settlement. The claimant-workman vide his letter dated 22.03.2021 denied the alleged charge of absenteeism. The letter was duly received by the management. The claimant-workman further informed the management that he is ready to join his duty at Chandigarh with immediate effect. But the management till date has not replied the letter. The management neither denied the contents of the demand notice nor took the claimant-workman back on duty. The Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh was requested for his intervention. Management No.1 appeared before the Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh one time only and thereafter he did not appear before the conciliation on any date fixed for settlement. The termination is illegal, wrongful, motivated against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice. The claimant-workman remained unemployed during the period i.e. from the date of termination to till date. Prayer is made that the claimant-workman be reinstated with continuity of service along with full back wages and without any change in his service condition.
1252 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)3. On notice, management No.1 contested the claim statement by filing written reply dated 12.11.2022 (filed on 06.12.2022) wherein it is stated that the date of commencement is correct but the answering management did not terminate any employee. It is denied as incorrect that both these managements refused work to the claimant-workman. Since no termination was done, thus retrenchment benefits, charge sheet, inquiry to be held before termination etc. are not applicable. The employees collectively absented and refused to come to work, the matter was taken up with disciplinary action, Checkmate Security Services have made sufficient representation at Labour Department. The applicant's plea that action of the management is illegal, wrongful, motivated, against the principles of natural justice and unfair labour practice is not acceptrial. The claimant-workman's plea of demanding reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and without any change in service condition etc. is not acceptable. No such intentions and acts were initiated by employer but all outstanding efforts were made to get the employee to work as the company had to face huge losses.
4. Management No.2 contested the claim statement by filing separate written statement dated 01.11.2022 (filed on 01.11.2022) wherein preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the claim statement is not legally maintainable as there is privity of contract between claimant-workman and the answering management and the claimant-workman was never hired by the answering management.
5. On merits, it is denied for want of knowledge that on 11.06.2016 the claimant-workman was appointed as Cash Sorter by management No.1. The answering management had hired the services of management No.1 but appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1 and the answering management has no role to play in it. The alleged the claimant-workman was not on the roll of bank nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by the answering management.
No refusal as alleged by the claimant-workman was conveyed by the officials of the answering management.
No alleged demand notice was ever served upon the answering management and also no notice was received by the answering management from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant-workman never remained employee or worker of the answering management.
Rest of the averments of the claim statement are denied being incorrect and prayer is made that claim statement may be dismissed with cost.
6. The claimant-workman filed rejoinder to the written statement of management No.1 on 17.01.2023 wherein contents of the written statement except admitted facts are denied and averments of claim statement are reiterated. Rejoinder to written statement of management No.2 was not filed.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.03.2023 :-
1. Whether the termination of the workman is illegal ? OPW
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits as prayed for ? OPW
3. Whether the claim statement qua management No.2 is not maintainable? OPM (management No.2)
4. Relief.
8. In evidence, claimant-workman Mahavir Singh examined himself as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A'. On 08.09.2023 Learned Representative for the claimant-workman closed the evidence in affirmative.
9. On the other hand, management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Rajpal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh, who tendered his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A'.
10. Management No.1 examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking) of M/s Checkmate CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1253 Services Pvt. Ltd., Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali, who tendered into evidence his affidavit vide Exhibit 'MW2/A' along with notary attested copies of documents Exhibit 'MW1/1' to Exhibit 'MW1/7'.
Exhibit 'MW2/1' is authority letter dated 28.03.2019 in Jaspal Singh issued by the Managing Director & Company Secretary of management No.1.
Exhibit 'MW2/2' is aadhar card of Jaspal Singh.
Exhibit MW2/3' is warning letter dated 12.02.2021 issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through courier
Exhibit 'MW2/3-A' is original receipt of DTDC Courier Agencies.
Exhibit 'MW2/4' is absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 for not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
Exhibit 'MW2/4-A' is original postal receipt dated 20.02.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/5' is letter dated 17.03.2021 for final intimation on not reporting on duty issued to the workman by the authorised signatory of management No.1 through registered post.
Exhibit 'MW2/5-A' is original postal receipt dated 19.03.2021.
Exhibit 'MW2/6' is original undelivered courier envelop bearing remarks 'refused'.
Exhibit 'MW2/7' is original undelivered registered letter accompanied with acknowledgment bearing postal endorsement 'refused'.
11. On 16.11.2023 Learned Representative for management No.2 closed the evidence on behalf of management No.2. On 06.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed oral evidence. On 14.12.2023 Shri Baljinder Pal Singh - Representative for management No.1 closed documentary evidence.
12. I have heard arguments of Learned Representatives for the parties and perused the judicial file.
My issue-wise findings are as below :-
Issue No.1 to 3 :
13. Onus to prove issue No.1 & 2 is on the workman and onus to prove issue No.3 is on management No.2.
14. Under these issues, claimant-workman Mahavir Singh examined himself as his own witness as AW1 and vide his affidavit Exhibit 'AW1/A' deposed the averments of claim statement in toto which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
15. Management No.1 has examined MW2 Jaspal Singh - DGM (Banking), who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that he is working with management No.1 as Deputy General Manager (Banking) with Employee Code EMP/COR006558, Office at SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SA S Nagar, Mohali from 06.05.2014 and he is personally aware of the facts of this case. Management No.1 is a company registered as per the provisions of the Company's Act, 1956. Management No.1 is engaged in business of providing security services, cash sorter services across the India to its customers on the basis of requirement and as per contract terms and agreement. Contrary to the workman's claim of illegal termination, he submits that the employment of the claimant-workman was not terminated. Due to exigency of work in the other location of management No.1, he as DGM (Banking) transferred the following four employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company's requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
1254 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
These employees were transferred to their Ahmedabad office. They were given transfer letters given by hand to report to Checkmate, Ahmedabad Office under his instructions (as per company's requirement) on 11.02.2021 through Indian post RPAD. These letters were given in person which they refused to accept.
They were briefed regarding the transfer, which they refused to accept, return letter with remarks of refusal.
The transfer letters were displayed on the notice board of the Axis Bank on same day i.e. on 11.02.2021. On 12.02.2021, he was on leave and was attending function at his home town, when he received a call from Mr. Ritesh Kumar - Branch Manager, Axis Bank, stating that no employee of Checkmate Services had reported for duty and when they and he had tried to contact their employee, they were absent. The claimant-workman stated that they will not come to work and all were not willing to come for duty any more. He informed about the mass absenteeism by the claimant-workman and repeated calls were received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employee who have not come on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff as bank work stuck up due to cash sorter not reporting for duty. He kept on calling absentee employees from his phone but his phone was not picked by any of the absent employees for the next 2 days i.e. 12.02.2021 to 14.02.2021. On resuming his office on 15.02.2021, he himself again tried to contact the absconding employees, only Mr. Ravi Kumar, EMP/CHD05592 and Mr. Pankaj Kataria, EMP/CHD/03936 picked the call and agreed to come to Mohali Office SCF 128, Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali. On next day i.e. 16.02.2021 he himself tried to convince both the absconded employees to resume their duties as the bank officials were putting lot of pressure and the work stoppage had very negative impact on the bank services and their reputation and high penalty clause in the agreement. Both the employees Mr. Ravi Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kataria were ready to understand and joined the duties but stated that other fellow employees had threatened them not to join the duty. Meanwhile they have appointed new staff in place of absconded employees to fill the bank requirement and their repetition as service provider as well to avoid high penalty of non-providing contractual staff as per agreement. They have also approached the absconded staff to join duty at the other place. They have requirement at Ahemdabad, for that they had sent the letter through RP/AD post letter dated 11.02.2021 as well sent the absenteeism letters on 18.02.2021 and final letter on 17.03.2021 to the claimant-workman to join duty as his services has not been terminated nor any violation of his appointment services conditions. He asserts that the management has never terminated the services of the claimant-workman. On the contrary the management has provided multiple opportunities to the claimant-workman to re-join duty even after a mass absconding incident incurred. The claimant-workman however failed to respond or re-join and instead engaged in mass absconding without any prior intimation. This action appears to be an attempt to harass both the managements to coercive tactics by the claimant-workman. The management remains willing to offer employment as there has been no formal termination of services. Consequently, there is no basis for claims related to back wages or any other form of compensation, given that the service has not been terminated. MW2 supported his oral version with documents Exhibit 'MW2/1' to Exhibit 'MW2/7'.
16. The management No.2 examined MW1 Amit Raj Pal - Senior Manager, Axis Bank, who vide his affidavit Exhibit 'MW1/A' wherein he deposed that the present alleged claim filed by the claimant against management No.2 is legally maintainable as there is no privity of contract between claimant and management No.2 and the claimant was never hired by management No.2. Management No.2 had hired the services of management No.1 but the appointment and termination of any worker was the sole discretion of management No.1. Management No.2 had no role to play in it. The alleged claimant was not on the roll of the bank, nor employee of the bank nor even any salary was paid to him by management No.2. No notice as alleged was ever served upon management No.2 and also no notice was received by management No.2 from the office of Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The claimant never remained employee or worker of management No.2.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 125517. From the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties it comes out that undisputedly the claimant-workman was appointed on 11.06.2016 as Cash Sorter by management No.1 and was deployed at the work place of management No.2. In this regard, AW1 when to put to cross-examination by management No.2 stated that Axis Bank / management No.2 did not issue him any appointment letter and termination letter / order. He was deployed with the Axis Bank / management No.2 by M/s Checkmate i.e. management No.1. MW1 (witness of management No.2) when to put to cross-examination by the workman admitted as correct that the Axis Bank has contract with the Checkmate Services for providing the manpower. MW1 admitted as correct that the Checkmate Services provided about 15 workers including the claimant of the present case for deployment with Chandigarh Branch of Axis Bank. MW1 stated that bank was not maintaining the attendance of contractual workers. The supervisor of Checkmate was maintaining their attendance. The bank had not been supervising the disbursement of wages and provident fund etc. of the contractual workers. MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1) when to put cross- examination by the workman stated that the agreement of management No.1 with the Axis Bank Ltd. / management No.2 was at central level and there was no local agreement. Under the said agreement, management No.1 provided 18 workers to management No.2 around year 2016. From the above-mentioned version of AW1, MW1 and MW2 it is duly established on record that management No.1 i.e. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is service provider, who under the contract has provided security services and Cash Sorter services to management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh and the claimant-workman was deployed by the management No.1 at the work place of management No.2 as a Cash Sorter. Since management No.1 maintained the record of attendance and supervision of work of claimant-workman through its Supervisor, thus the claimant-workman was under the direct employment of management No.1 and was a contractual worker deployed with management No.2. There is no direct relationship of employer-employee between management No.2 and claimant-workman. Since management No.2 has hired the services of claimant-workman from its service provider i.e. management No.1, therefore, management No.2 was necessary party, being principal employer, and the claim qua management No.2 is duly maintainable.
18. Admittedly, the authority to appoint, transfer and terminate the contractual employee (herein claimant-workman) was with the service provider i.e. management No.1. Learned Representative for the claimant-workman argued that the claimant-workman remained in continuous employment of the management No.1 from the date of appointment i.e. 11.06.2016 up to 11.02.2021, thus completed 240 days of continuous service in 12 calendar months preceding termination of his services (service being verbally terminated on 12.02.2021). The claimant-workman has alleged that his last drawn wages were `17,000/- per month. In this regard MW2 (witness of management No.1) was put to cross-examination by workman stated that there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, amount of monthly salary and the date of dispensing with of their services. MW2 further stated that all the workers including the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding their absence from duty.
19. Management No.1 has taken the plea that 15 contractual workers were deployed with management No.2. On 11.02.2021, out of 15 contractual workers, 4 workers namely Ravinder, Joginder Pal, Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar were transferred to Ahmedabad. 4 workers who were transferred refused to accept the transfer letter and refused to join at Ahmedabad. The transfer-cum-movement order was also affixed on the notice board of management No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Limited. In order to put pressure upon the management No.1 to cancel the transfer order of four employees all 15 contractual workers collectively absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021. After extensive follow-ups, 2 workers returned to duty with the same employment terms & conditions whereas the remaining 13 including the workman of the present case did not resume duty. It is further argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that M/s Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. has not terminated the service of any of the workman in any manner. Management No.1 has followed due procedure issuing absenteeism letters and reminders, emphasising the company's intent for workman to resume duty but he refused to receive. Management No.1 also issued warning letter dated 12.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/3' 1256 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) through courier vide receipt Exhibit 'MW2/3A', issued another absenteeism letter dated 18.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/4' vide postal receipt Exhibit 'MW2/4A' and final intimation for not reporting on duty vide letter dated 17.03.2021 Exhibit 'MW2/5' through registered post vide Exhibit 'MW2/5A'. Despite issuance of various letters, the claimant-workman did not join back the duty, thus, the claimant-workman himself abandoned the job, though his services were never terminated by management No.1. The workman failed to report to his duty at the work place without any prior notice or explanation which is a clear violation of company's policy and established work expectations. The employer has the inherent right to manage its work force including making decisions regarding re-location. Management No.1 has acted in accordance with its established policies and procedures which were communicated to all the employees by all means to join duty.
20. On the other hand, Learned Representative for the workman contended that no letter / letters as alleged by management No.1 were ever received by the claimant-workman. There is nothing on record to show that the letters allegedly issued through courier or registered post were actually delivered to the claimant- workman. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment, date of dispensing with the services and monthly salary of the workman. As proved from the cross-examination of MW2 Jaspal Singh (witness of management No.1), the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his alleged absence from duty, the claimant-workman fulfills the requirement of continuous service as defined in Section 25-B of the ID Act. Once the workman is covered under Section 25- B of the ID Act, then the provision of Section 25-F stands attracted. For better appreciation Section 25-F of the ID Act is reproduced as below :-
"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]."
21. Section 25-F of the ID Act lays down certain conditions which are precedent to retrenchment of workman. In the present case, the management No.1 has taken the plea that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021 in protest to the transfer order of co-workers from Chandigarh to Ahmedabad.
Moreover, the plea taken by the management No.1 during its evidence that the workman absented in protest to transfer order of the co-worker and to pressurize the management No.1 to withdraw the transfer order of the co-workers is beyond pleadings. The written statement finds no reference of any alleged transfer order of any of the workmen deployed with the Axis Bank. In this regard MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination stated that in written reply filed by management No.1 to the claim statement, it is nowhere mentioned that the worker was transferred from Chandigarh to some other place. Besides, the management has failed to prove into evidence the transfer order of the co-workers.
22. As far as the contention raised by Learned Representative for the claimant-workman that no letter allegedly issued by the management No.1 was served to the workman, is concerned, AW1 when put to cross-examination by management No.1 stated that he has not received any letter from the management No.1.
As per the claim statement the complete address of the claimant-workman is House No.1055, Sector 56, CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1257 Chandigarh. Warning letter dated 12.02.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/3' issued through courier vide receipt Exhibit 'MW2/3A' reveals that it was issued on the same address but there is no delivery report of courier. The registered post Exhibit 'MW2/6' bearing postal receipt dated 20.02.2021 and another courier Exhibit 'MW2/7' bearing receipt dated 17.02.2021 are issued on the correct address of the workman which were received back undelivered with the postal endorsement of refusal. Even if the letters of absenteeism or warning letter were served to the workman, in that situation also if the workman fails to report on duty, the management No.1 / employer was required to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the workman. But the management No.1 / employer did not initiate any kind of disciplinary proceedings against the workman either by issuing show cause notice or charge sheet. Moreover, management No.1 in cross-examination of claimant- workman / AW1 did not put his postal / correspondence address to him. Therefore, oral version of MW2 (his voluntary statement) in his cross-examination recorded on 06.12.2023 that the letters were issued to the workman as per his address available on record is insufficient to assume the delivery of letters. The management No.1 did not produce their office record into evidence showing the address of the claimant-workman.
23. MW2 Jaspal Singh in his cross-examination (recorded on 30.11.2023) denied the suggestion as wrong that vide letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' the services of the workman were terminated. To my opinion, the denial on part of MW2 that the management did not intend to terminate the services of the workman by issuing letter dated 17.03.2021 / Exhibit 'MW2/5' is not acceptable because in his cross- examination MW2 admitted as correct that vide letter Exhibit 'MW2/5' the workman was directed to complete his clearance formalities for full & final settlement. The aforesaid admission on part of MW2 would suggest that the managementNo.1 intended to effect full & final settlement with the workman, which can be done only when the workman is relieved from service and not during continuity of his service.
24. MW2 in para 4 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' deposed that due to exigency of work in other locations of respondent No.1 requirement, he as the DGM Banking, transferred the following employees to their Ahmedabad office as per company requirement :-
i) Mr. Joginder Pal S/o Gian Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00746
ii) Mr. Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Dular, Employee Code EMP/CHD00748
iii) Mr. Suresh Kumar S/o Milap Chand, Employee Code EMP/CHD00749
iv) Mr. Ravinder S/o Ram Nath, Employee Code EMP/CHD00752
25. In the present case, first of all the aforesaid plea taken by MW2 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/A' is beyond pleadings. Secondly, MW2 in para 7 of his affidavit Exhibit 'MW2/ A' deposed that he informed about the mass absenteeism by the applicant and repeated calls received from Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank for deficiency in services and he would not accept any contract employees, who are not coming on duty, the bank will not accept such un-authorised absence from their staff, as Bank work was stuck up due to Cash Sorter not reporting for duty. The aforesaid version of MW2 is also beyond pleadings. Besides Axis Bank / management No.2 in its written statement / reply nowhere mentioned that Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager, Axis Bank telephonically informed the management No.1 about any un-authorised absence of the workman from duty. Management No.1 and 2 did not examine Mr. Ritesh - Branch Manager in their evidence. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence on record to show the company's requirement at Ahmedabad office of management No.1.
26. If for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the claimant-workman absented from duty w.e.f. 12.02.2021, then also at the most it amounts to misconduct and since the workman fulfills the requirement of Section 25-B of the ID Act, thus management No.1 was bound to comply with the conditions incorporated in Section 25-F of the ID Act. But management No.1 has failed to comply with mandatory conditions as laid down in Section 25-F of the ID Act. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that no charge sheet was served to the workman for his alleged absence from duty. Neither any 1258 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) preliminary inquiry nor any regular domestic inquiry was conducted against the workman. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the worker. From the aforesaid version of MW2, it is established that management No.1 has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman reported in 2014(11) SCC 85 titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Versus Hindalco Industries Limited is applicable to the facts of the present case to an extent. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :-
"Evidently, the above said mandatory procedure has not been followed in the present case.
Further, it has been held by this Court in the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer,
Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, 2010(3) S.C.T. 319 : trial5) SCC 497 as under:-
13.... no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions
enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of
Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing
indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b)
casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment,
compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous
service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that
Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the
retrenchment of an employee nullity - State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR
1960 Supreme Court 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, (1964) 6 SCR
22, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, (1976) 1 SCC 822, Santosh Gupta v. State
Bank of Patiala, (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics
Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 255, L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway,
(1982) 1 SCC 645, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Industrial Tribunal, (1980) 4 SCC 443,
Gammon India Ltd. V. Niranjan Das, (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab,
1991(3) S.C.T. 608 : (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003(2) S.C.T.
296 : (2003) 4 SCC619. This Court has used different expressions for describing the
consequence of terminating a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of
retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it
has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometimes as nullity and
sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold
that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with
the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in
terms of Section 25F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as
nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his services was not
terminated."
27. MW2 Jaspal Singh, witness of Management No.1 / service provider during his cross-examination expressed his readiness to re-join the worker but refused to give him the benefit of continuity of service and back wages. In this regard, MW2 when put to cross-examination by the workman stated that we are ready to take in service absentee workers as per availability of vacancy at Chandigarh and nearby stations such as Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Panchkula. MW2 further stated that they are not ready to re-join the workers with continuity of service. They are also not ready to pay back wages for the period of their absence from duty.
MW2 denied the suggestion as wrong that re-joining of a workman without continuity of service amounts to fresh appointment. To my opinion, the conditional offer of management No.1 / service provider to re-join the workman as per availability of the vacancy and without the benefits of continuity of service & back wages is unjustified because as discussed above, in this case, the termination of services of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act. In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1259 continuity of service and back wages is a normal rule. The workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service under the same terms & conditions as existed before his termination.
28. As far as back wages are concerned, the claimant-workman has alleged that he remained unemployed during the period from the date of termination till date. On the other hand, none of the manage- ments have taken plea of gainful employment in their respective written statements. However, it is argued by Learned Representative for management No.1 that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5390 of 2019 decided on 11th July 2019 tilted as Chief regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited United India Insurance Company Limited versus Siraj Uddin Khan; the principle of 'no work, on pay' applies, In case, the workman is to be reinstated he is not entitled to back wages.
To my opinion, the judgment referred (supra) by Learned Representative for management No.1 is not appli- cable to the facts of the present case in view of the judgment referred by Learned Representative for the workman tilted as P.G.I. of M.E. and Research Versus Raj Kumar, report in 2001(2) SCC 54. Under the circumstances, the workman is held entitled to 50% back wages.
29. In the view of discussions made above, termination of the workman is held illegal being in violation to Section 25-F of the ID Act as such the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
30. Accordingly, issue No.1 & 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against management No.1. Issue No.3 is decided against management No.2 and in favour of the workman.
Relief :
31. In the view of foregoing finding on the issues No.1 & 2 above, this industrial dispute is allowed qua management No.1. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Management No.1 is directed to comply with the award within three months from the date of publication of the same in Government Gazette failing which management No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate 8% per annum on the amount of consequential benefits from the date of this award till its actual realisation. Appropriate Government be informed. Copy of this award be also sent to Learned District Judge, Chandigarh in view of Sub-section 10 of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 for onward transmission of the same to concerned Civil Court. File be consigned to the record room.
(Sd.) . . .,
Dated : 14.12.2023.
(JAGDEEP KAUR VIRK) PRESIDING OFFICER, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. UID No. PB0152.
____________
Secretary Labour, Chandigarh Administration.
1260 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Notification
The 2nd April, 2024
No. 59.—Ms. Paramjit Kaur, Assistant Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh has retired from services of this Court w.e.f. 31.03.2024 (A.N.) on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(Sd. ) . . .,
(ASHISH KUMAR BANSAL), Registrar (Administration), for Registrar General.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Notification
The 2nd April, 2024
No. 60.—Ms. Kalpana Thakur, Deputy Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh has retired from services of this Court w.e.f. 31.03.2024 (A.N.) on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(Sd. ) . . .,
(ASHISH KUMAR BANSAL), Registrar (Administration), for Registrar General.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Notification
The 2nd April, 2024
No. 61/E.I./V.B.—Sh. Davinder Kumar Sharma, Superintendent Grade-I of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has retired from the service of this Hon'ble Court w.e.f. 31.03.2024 (A.N.) on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(Sd. ) . . .,
(ASHISH KUMAR BANSAL), Registrar (Administration), for Registrar General.
CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA) 1261HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Notification
The 2nd April, 2024
No. 62/E.I./V.B.—Sh. Dalvinder Singh, Superintendent Grade-I of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has retired from the service of this Hon'ble Court w.e.f. 31.03.2024 (A.N.) on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(Sd. ) . . .,
(ASHISH KUMAR BANSAL), Registrar (Administration), for Registrar General.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Notification
The 2nd April, 2024
No. 63/E.I./V.B.—Sh. Charanjit Singh, Superintendent Grade-I of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has retired from the service of this Hon'ble Court w.e.f. 31.03.2024 (A.N.) on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(Sd. ) . . .,
(ASHISH KUMAR BANSAL), Registrar (Administration), for Registrar General.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Notification
The 2nd April, 2024
No. 64/E.I./V.B.—Sh. Rajesh Kumar Malik, Superintendent Grade-I of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has retired from the service of this Hon'ble Court w.e.f. 31.03.2024 (A.N.) on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(Sd. ) . . .,
(ASHISH KUMAR BANSAL), Registrar (Administration), for Registrar General.
1262 CHD. ADMN. GAZ., APRIL 03, 2024 (CHTR. 14, 1946 SAKA)CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
HOME DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 19th March, 2024.
No. 194220.F/259-HIII(1)-2024/3820.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 28-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act No.43 of 1951), the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to designate the following Police Officer and Police Personnel of the Union Territory, Chandigarh on deputation with Election Commission for conduct of General Parliamentary Election 2024 and such officer/personnel during the period, be subject to the control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission in the Union Territory of Chandigarh :—
1. Director General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
2. Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
4. Senior Superintendent of Police (Security & Traffic), Union Territory, Chandigarh.
5. All Superintendents of Police. Union Territory, Chandigarh.
6. All Deputy Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
7. All other Police Officers, Personnel and Home Guard Volunteers under the control of the authorities mentioned at Sr. 1 to 6.
Chandigarh : The 19th March, 2024.
NITIN KUMAR YADAV, IAS, Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration.
"No legal responsibility is accepted for the contents of publication of advertisements/public notices in this part of the
Chandigarh Administration Gazette. Persons notifying the advertisements/public notices will remain solely responsible for
the legal consequences and also for any other misrepresentation etc."
057—Ptg. & Sty. Deptt., U.T., Chd.