Karnataka High Court
The Secretary Central vs The Member Secretary on 19 October, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.19130 OF 2007
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.20513 OF 2007 (L-RES)
W.P. No. 19130/2007
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S RAMESHA
S/O SRI.SHIVARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
2. SRI M N SURESHA
S/O SRI NARAYANACHAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
3. SRI L GOPALA
S/O LATE LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
2
4. SRI MAHADEVA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONALSILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008
5. SRI ANDANI
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
6. SRI S K KALEGOWDA
S/O SRI KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
7. SRI NANJUNDASWAMY
S/O LATE NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION
CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
8. SRI THAMMANNA
S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
MANASAWADI ROAD, OPP: TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 008.
3
9. SRI S SRIDHAR
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER,
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE,
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
MINISTRY TO TEXTILES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEAR BASAVESHWARATEMPLE,
KANAKAPURA ROAD
MALAVALLI-571 430
10 . SRI PARAMESHAIAH
S/OS RI KUNDAJOGI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
GOVT. OFINDIAOPP TO SUB JAIL,
HUNSUR ROAD,
KRISHNARAJANAGARA - 571 602.
11 . SRI SIDDIQ SHARIFF
S/OSRI AHMED SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANISATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
GOVT.OF INDIA OPP TO SUB JAIL,
HUNSUR ROAD,
KRISHNARAJANAGAR - 571 602.
12 . SRI H C KUMAR
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
BASIC SEED FARM NATIONAL SILK WORM
SEED ORGANISATION
VIDYARANYAPURAM FARM,
J.L.B. ROAD MYSORE-570 008.
13 . SRI C M JAYARAM
S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILK WORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATIONCENTRAL SILK BOARD,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
RAMANAGAR.
14 . SRI L BASAVARAJU
S/O SRI LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILKWORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRENATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANIZATIONCENTRAL SILK BOARD,
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OFINDIA,
NEAR BASAVESHWA TEMPLE
KANAKAPURA ROAD
MALAVALLI - 571 430.
15 . SRI B NANDEESHA
S/O LATE S BASAVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILK WORM SEED
PRODUCATION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATION MANASAWADI ROAD,
OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE-570 038.
16 . SRI BEERAIAH S/O SRI DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILKWORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATION CENTRALSILK BOARD,
GOVT. OF INDIA
P.B.NO.7, B.M.ROAD,
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANGARAM - 571 511
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
17. SRI. GOPALA KRISHAN
S/O LAE B.C. RAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILKWORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATION CENTRAL
SILK BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANGARAMA - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5
18. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O LATE KARE GOWDA
AGED AOBUT 50 YEARS.
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILKWORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATION CENTRAL
SILK BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANGARAMA - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
19. SRI. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE ARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILKWORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATION CENTRAL
SILK BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANGARAMA - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
20. SRI. JAYARAMU
S/O SRI. MUDALAGIRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER SILKWORM SEED
PRODUCTION CENTRE NATIONAL SILK SEED
ORGANISATION CENTRAL
SILK BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA
RAMANAGARA.
21. SRI. S. SHEKAR
S/O. SRI. SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
22. SRI. B. LINGARAJU
S/O LATE T. BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
6
TRAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
23. SRI. KEMPANNA
S/O SRI. KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
24. SRI. K. SHANKAR ROAD
S/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
25. SRI. CHIKKAMALU
S/O LATE MALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
26. SRI. BHARANAPPA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
7
27. SRI. CHALUVARAJU
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
28. SRI. VENKATAIAH
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
29. SRI. M. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE. MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
30. SRI. P. KUMARASWAMY
S/O SRI. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
8
31. SRI. P. PRAKASH
S/O SRI. BETTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
32. SRI. H.C. RUDRASWAMY
S/O LATE H.V. CHIKKANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
33. SRI. BASAVA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
34. SRI. VIDYASAGAR
S/O LATE. M.V. MUNIRATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
9
35. MOHAMMED ZAIBULLA
S/O LATE BUDAIN CAPTAIN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
36. SRI. CHANNABASAVA
S/O LATE HANKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
37. SRI. H. SRINIVASA
S/O SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
38. SRI. K. RAJU
S/O SRI. J. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
10
39. SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O SRI. CHALUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
40. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
41. SMT. CHAMAMMA
W/O SRI. KUPPA
AGED 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
42. SRI. SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
11
43. SRI. P. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
44. SRI. CHANNAIAH
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
45. SRI. N. PAPANNA
S/O SRI. NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
46. SRI. NANJUNDA
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
12
47. SRI. BASAVAIAH
S/O LATE KUNMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
48. SRI. P. SUBRAMANYA
S/O SRI. PERUMAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
49. SRI. CHIKKASIDDAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
50. SRI. KUMAR
S/O LATE NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
13
51. SMT. CHIKKAMMA
D/O SRI. MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
52. SRI. K. THAMMAIAH
S/O SRI. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
53. SRI. N. GOVINDAIAH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
54. SRI. PUTTAMADAIAH
S/O SRI. S.M. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
14
55. SRI. N.T. VENKATESH
S/O SRI. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
56. SRI. HUCHEERA
S/O LATE HUCHEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
57. SRI. D.T. KARISHETTY
S/O LATE THIMMARAYASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
58. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
59. SRI. N. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O SRI. S.M. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
15
60. SRI. N.M. JAVAREGOWDA
S/O LATE MAYANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
61. SRI. MAYANNA
S/O LATE HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
P3 BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED PROJECT
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NAGAMANGALA - 571 432.
62. SRI. RAMAIAH
S/O. SRI. NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR
REGIONAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
( A UNIT UNDER CSR & TI, MYSORE
NANJANGUD ROAD
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313).
63. SRI. D. MARISWAMY
S/O SRI. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
16
64. SRI. H.N. GOVINDARAJU
S/O SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
BASIC SEED FARM
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANISATION
VIDYARANYAPURAM FARM
J.L.B. ROAD
MYSORE - 570 008.
65. SRI. N. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
66. SRI. P.T. SRINIVASA
S/O SRI. K. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
67. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O SRI. MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
17
68. SRI. MALLASWAMY
S/O SRI. SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
69. SRI. N.L. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE N.LAKSHMIPATHI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
70. SRI. PAPANNA
S/O SRI. CHIKKAHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
71. SRI. ANANDA MURTHY
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
18
72. SRI. M. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
73. SRI. S. SURESHA
S/O SRI. SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
74. SRI. M. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE MAHADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
75. SRI. NANJINDA
S/O SRI. EARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
76. SRI. K.B. DORESWAMY
S/O SRI BEEREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
19
77. SMT. SAROJAMMA
D/O SRI. REVANASIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIOANL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
MANASAWADI ROAD, OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE - 570 008.
78. SMT. LEELAVATHI
D/O LATE SIDDABASANAIK
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIOANL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
MANASAWADI ROAD, OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE - 570 008.
79. SMT.SUNITRA
D/O LATE PATTAHELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIOANL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
MANASAWADI ROAD
OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE - 570 008.
80. SMT. SUKANYADEVI
D/O SRI. C. NAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIOANL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
MANASAWADI ROAD
OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE - 570 008.
81. SRI. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE SUBBASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 49 EYARS.
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANAGARAM - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
20
82. SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O SRI. BETHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANAGARAM - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
83. SRI. H.S. MUKUNDA
S/O LATE H.B. SESHDAR IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
R.E.C. SUB-UNIT, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
2ND CROSS, PARK EXTENSION ,BALARAJ URS ROAD
SHIMOGA - 570 021.
84. SRI. S. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
MANASAWADI ROAD, OPP TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE - 570 008.
85. SRI. S. NINGAIAH
S/O LATE SANDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKERS
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MANANSWADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM MYSORE ROAD
MYSORE - 570 008.
86. SRI. V.UMESH
S/O SRI. D. VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) , MANANDAWADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM MYSORE ROAD
MYSORE - 570 008.
21
87. SRI. C. REVANASIDDAIAH
S/O LATE. CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION
CENTRE, NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
P.B.NO. 7, B.M.ROAD
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANAGARAM - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
88. SRI. RANGANATHA
S/O SRI. CHIKKARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SILK WORK SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
MALAVALLI - 571 430
MANDYA DISTRICT.
89. SRI. N.B. NAGEGOWDA
S/O LATE BUSEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
90. SRI. K.B. VISHWANATHA
S/O LATE B. BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
22
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
91. SRI. K.B. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O SRI. KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
92. SRI. SIDDALINGA
S/O LATE. NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
93. SRI. NINGA SHETTY
S/O LATE SHAMBU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
94. SRI. B.S. DINESHA
S/O SRI. D.G. SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
23
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
95. SRI. NAGEGOWDA
S/O LATE. M.N. DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
96. SRI. A.V.LAKSHMANA
S/O SRI. VENKATAGIRI GOWDA
AGED AOBUT 37 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
97. SRI. B.P. MANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
98. SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJEGOWDA
S/O SRI. BOREGOWDA
24
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
99. SRI. T.P. THIMMAPPA
S/O SRI. T. RAJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILK WORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
MANASWADI ROAD
OPP. TO RATNA THEATRE
MYSORE - 570 008.
100. SRI. M. NARARAJU
S/O SRI. CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
101. SMT. THULASAMMA
S/O SRI. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SILKWORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
P.B.NO. 7, B.M. ROAD
NEAR GOUSIAY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANAGARAM - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
102. SRI. DEVARAJU
S/O LATE JAVARESHETTY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
25
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
103. SMT. CHIKKATAYAMMA
D/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
104. SRI. S. RAMAKUMAR
S/O LATE. S. SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
105. SRI. B. RAMACHADNRA
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
106. SRI. B. MARISWAMY
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
26
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
107. SRI. SOMASHEKARA
S/O LATE. T. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
108. SRI. S. KRISHNA
S/O LATE. SANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SILK WORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
MALAVALLI - 571 430
MANDYA DISTRICT.
109. SRI. PUTTARAMACHARI
S/O SRI. KALACHARI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
27
110. SMT. B. GOWRAMMA
D/O SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
111. SRI. RUKMANGADARAJU
S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
112. SRI.BHEEMAIAH
S/O SRI. M.K. MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
P4 BASIC SEED FARM, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
DEVARAYAPATNA
B.M.ROAD, KANDALI POST
NEAR CSRTC QUARTERS
HASSAN - 573 217.
113. SRI. K.S. BASAVARAJA
S/O LATE SIDDAMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
P4 BASIC SEED FARM, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
DEVARAYAPATNA
B.M.ROAD, KANDALI POST
NEAR CSRTC QUARTERS
HASSAN - 573 217.
28
114. SRI. T.H. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O SRI. HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
P4 BASIC SEED FARM
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
DEVARAYAPATNA
B.M.ROAD, KANDALI POST
NEAR CSRTC QUARTERS
HASSAN - 573 217.
115. SRI. C.L. EREGOWDA
S/O LATE. LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
P4 BASIC SEED FARM
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
DEVARAYAPATNA
B.M.ROAD, KANDALI POST
NEAR CSRTC QUARTERS
HASSAN - 573 217.
116. SRI. K.L.KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
P4 BASIC SEED FARM
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
DEVARAYAPATNA
B.M.ROAD, KANDALI POST
NEAR CSRTC QUARTERS
HASSAN - 573 217.
117. SRI. HEMANTHA KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
P4 BASIC SEED FARM
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
DEVARAYAPATNA
B.M.ROAD, KANDALI POST
NEAR CSRTC QUARTERS
HASSAN - 573 217.
29
118. SRI. J.N. MOHANA
S/O LATE. S. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
119. SMT. O. GOWRAMMA
W/O SRI. SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
120. SRI. S.J. GANESHA
S/O SRI. S.T. JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
121. SRI. J.B. GOPAL GOWDA
S/O LATE SANBOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
30
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
122. SRI. B.K. VASANTH GOWDA
S/O LATE KIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
123. SRI. SRIKANTACHARI
S/O SRI. K.N.KALACHARI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
124. SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O SRI. DODDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
31
125. SRI. K. GIRI GOWDA
S/O LATE GOWDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
126. SRI. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
S/O LATE. SANNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
127. SMT. PREMAMMA
D/O LATE. THAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
128. SRI. M. MAHADEVAIAH
S/O SRI. MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMETN OF INDIA
32
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
129. SRI. SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE. DODDASIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMETN OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
130. SRI. SRIKANTASWAMY
S/O LATE NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
T TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMETN OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
131. SRI. CHALUVARAJU
S/O LATE. JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMETN OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
132. SRI. K. PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE. KALISIDDAIAH
AGED AOBUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMETN OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
33
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
133. SRI. SANNASWAMY
S/O SRI. KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET
MANDYA DISTRICT.
134. SRI. M.K. BOREGOWDA
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
135. SRI. Y. GANESHA
S/O LATE SHINGERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
136. SRI. H.L. RAMAIAH
S/O SRI. LINGANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
34
CHAKANAHALLI POST
YADUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
137. SRI. S.N. RAMA BHATTA
S/O SRI. S.N. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALU ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET - 571 426.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
138. SRI. SHASHI GOWDA
S/O SRI. HUCHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALU ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET - 571 426.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
139. SRI. G.K. RAMESH
S/ O LATE. KALEGWODA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR TECHNICIAL ASSISTANT
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEAR SRI. CHOWDESHWARI PETROL BUNK
B.M.ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTENSION
CHANNARAYAPATNA - 573 116.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
140. SRI.K.R. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
35
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
141. SRI.H.N. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE. NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION, HOSAHALALU ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET - 571 426.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
142. SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE RACHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
143. SRI. C. VYRAMADI
S/O LATE. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING
INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
144. SMT. M.S. BHAGYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE SIDDHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SILK WORK SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
36
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
MALAVALLI - 571 430
MANDYA DISTRICT.
145. SRI. CHIKKASIDDAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING
INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
146. SRI. CHINCHAIAH
S/O SRI. CHUNCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SILK WORK SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KANAKAPURA ROAD
MALAVALLI - 571 430
MANDYA DISTRICT.
147. SRI. VENKATESHA
S/O LATE. VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SILK WORM SEED PRODUCTION CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
P.B.NO. 7, B.M.ROAD
NEAR GOUSIYA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
RAMANAGARAM - 571 511.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
148. SRI. BETTEGOWDA
S/O LATE. CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
37
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
149. SRI. KUMAR
S/O LATE SINGARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR TECHNICIAL ASSISTANT
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK WORM SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEAR SRI. CHOWDESHWARI PETROL BUNK
B.M.ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTENSION
CHANNARAYAPATNA - 573 116.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
150. SRI. SHIVA MURTHY
S/O LATE. KADALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESERCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
151. SRI. SHAMBANNA
S/O LATE MARALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
152. SRI. T. CHANNAPPA
S/O SRI. SANNA THIPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
38
CENTRAL SILK BOARD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
153. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE. DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
154. SRI. T. CHIDANANDAPPA
S/O LATE. THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
155. SRI. Y. SHANKAR MURTHY
S/O SRI. V. HERUNGATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
156. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA
SRI. SRI. YELAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
39
157. SRI. T. GOPALA KRISHNA
S/O LATE THIPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
158. SRI. RAJAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTRE
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
MARAGHATTA, CHIKKAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 520.
159. SRI. IBRAHIM
S/O SRI. KHASIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR
REGIONAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
( A UNIT UNDER CST & TI, MYSORE)
NANJANGUD ROAD
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
160. SRI. SHIVASHANKARA
S/O SRI. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
40
161. SRI. SHIVANNA
S/O SRI. KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
162. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI. CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
163. SMT. CHAMAMMA D/O LATE. PAPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
164. SRI. DAYANANDA SWAMY S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
165. SRI. MAHADEVA
S/O SRI. CHIKKA ANKAPPA
AGED 49 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ,MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
41
166. SRI. SRIDHARA S/O SRI. CHALUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, CENTRAL SILK BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
167. SRI. M. NANJUNDA S/O LATE. MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
168. SRI. R. THYAGARAJA S/O LATE. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
169. SRI. V. RAMASWAMY
S/O SRI. VADAGALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
170. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O SRI. MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
SRIRAMPURAM, MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE - 570 008.
42
171. SRI. SHVIAIAH S/O SRI. CHIKKA NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
SERICULTURE SERVICE CENTRE
NATIONAL SILK SEED ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SILK BUILDING, JAYANAGAR
NEW EXTENSION HOSAHALALA ROAD
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT.
172. SRI. VEERABHAMACHARY S/O LATE PUTTACHAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TIME SCALE FARM WORKER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECOTR
SILK TESTING HOUSE CENTRAL SERICULTURAL
RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
VATAL NAGARAJ ROAD, OKLIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 021.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. N. DEVARAJ AND SRI. M.S. ANANDARAMU., ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE MEMBER SECRETARY
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
CENTRAL SILK BOARD COMPLEX
5TH FLOOR, B.T.M. LAYOUT
HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...RESPONDENT
( BY SRI. N.S. PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONERS. QUASH THE AWARD DT.19.9.2007 MADE IN
C.R.NO.122/99 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING
OFFICER OF THE C.G.IT, AT BANGALORE MARKED AT ANN-E
AND CONSEQUENTLY HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WRE
ALL QUALIFIED, ELIGIBLE AND ENTITLED TO GET THE
BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME KNOWN AS "CASUAL LABOURERS
(GRANT OF TEMPORARY STATUS AND REGULARIZATION)
SCHEME, 1993, FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE AND TO
EXTEND THE SAME TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS
GRANTING ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND TO
43
ALLOW THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, IN ITS
ENTIRETY AND ETC.
W.P. No. 20513/2007
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY CENTRAL
SILK BOARD EMPLOYEES' UNION
C/O MNJUNATHA STORES
NO.268/2, III MN PIPELINE
KASTURBANAGAR, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MEMBER SECRETARY
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
CENTRAL SILK BOARD COMPLEX
5TH FLOOR, B.T.M. LAYOUT
HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.S. PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE PERTAINING
TO ANN-A. QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
BANGALROE IN C.R.NO.122/99 DT.19.9.07, THE CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANN-A, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS
WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS &
ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS ARE BEING HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 20.12.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
44
ORDER
Both these petitions arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2007 passed in C.R.No.122/1999 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court (for short 'the Labour Court'), whereby the Dispute referred by the Central Government was dismissed.
2. W.P.No.19130/2007 is filed by the workmen of the respondent - Central Silk Board (for short 'the Board') which was arrayed as II party before the Labour Court.
The petitioners - workmen are the members of the Central Silk Board Employees' Union (for short 'the Union').
W.P.No.20513/2007 is filed by the petitioner -
Union which was arrayed as the I party before the Labour Court.
3. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in both the petitions, which have been preferred against the impugned judgment and award of 45 the Labour Court, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
4. The dispute that was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the Central Government vide order dated 16.11.1999 by exercising powers under Section 10(2A) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D.Act') was as under:-
"Whether the claim of the Central Silk Board Employees' Union to adopt the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 ( for short 'the Scheme') and Pay scales of the 5th Pay Commission in respect of casual and timescale farm workers by the Management of Central Silk Board, Bangalore, is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
5. Briefly stated the facts and contentions urged by the petitioners are as under:-
The petitioners contend that the aforesaid scheme formulated by the Central Government came into force on 10.09.1993 since all casual workers in Central Government Employment, who were given merely meagre wages and no other service benefits including 46 Employment Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Health schemes. The Scheme was formulated and issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training as per the Official Memorandum dated 10.09.1993. Several litigations arose between Casual and Timescale Farm Workers and the Management of Central Silk Board due to the Scheme. The Petitioner - Union then sought for the benefits of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers from the Respondent -
Board. The Respondent -Board did not comply with this demand and the issue came up before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bengaluru and since there was no settlement, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Central Government, pursuant to which, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court as stated supra.
5.1 Both the petitioner - Union (I Party) and Respondent - Board (II party) filed their respective pleadings. On behalf of the petitioners, the General Secretary of the Union was examined as WW-I and 47 documentary evidence at Exs.W1 to W47 were marked.
On behalf of the Respondent-Board, one Sri. G.K. Unnithan, the then Joint Director (Admn.) was examined as MW.I. and documentary evidence at Exs.M1 to M19 were marked. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court proceeded to dismiss the reference by passing the impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2007 which is assailed in the present petitions.
6. Heard Sri.K.Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri.N.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent - Board and perused the material on record.
7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and facts and the same deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, which commenced 48 in the year 1999, the Respondent - Board constituted a Committee of Senior Executives following the instructions issued by the Parliamentary Committee with regard to working conditions of Timescale Farm Workers. The Committee examined in detail the issues, working conditions, wage benefits and fringe benefits of the Timescale Farm Workers for the period 2003-2004 and submitted its report. In the said report, it is stated that the Timescale Farm Workers were engaged in silkworm seed production, reeling, spinning, etc., and were exposed to various health hazards and chronic ailments including Asthma, Tuberculosis and skin diseases and that their emoluments and adopted time scale were too low to meet their basic needs which put them in financial stress leading to their reduced efficiency. The report recommended that the Timescale Farm Workers were entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. The report also discloses that the Committee was aware about the pendency of the cases including the proceedings before the Labour Court.
497.1 It was submitted that in pursuance of the said report, the Respondent - Board passed a Resolution in its 115th Meeting held on 19.03.2005 and decided to implement the Scheme for the Timescale Farm Workers.
Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles directed the Respondent - Board on 25.11.2005 to implement the Scheme in favour of the workmen. In pursuance of the same, the Respondent - Board issued the Circular dated 15.12.2005 granting extension of the benefits under the Scheme in favour of the workmen.
Subsequently, on 29.12.2005, the Central Government addressed a communication to the Board in this regard, to which the Respondent - Board sent a reply dated 30.12.2005 reiterating that since the Central Government had approved the proposal for grant of benefit as per the Communication dated 25.11.2005, it would be advisable to go ahead and implement the revision of wages as per the scheme.
7.2 It is further contended that when the aforesaid approval for the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen was granted by the Central Government, which 50 was accepted and approved by the Respondent - Board also, the instant dispute in C.R.No.122/1999 between the petitioners and Respondent - Board was pending before the Labour Court. On 10.01.2006, the Respondent -
Board issued a Memorandum extending the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen. However, the Central Government addressed a Communication dated 20.01.2006 intimating the Board that approval granted on 25.11.2005 referred to supra had been withdrawn. In pursuance of the same, the Respondent - Board issued a Circular dated 01.02.2006 to the effect that the scheme would not be applicable to the workmen and that the Office Memorandum dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006 issued by the Board stood withdrawn.
7.3 It was contended that the aforesaid Circular dated 01.02.2006 issued by the Respondent - Board withdrawing the benefit of the scheme granted earlier in favour of the workmen was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.2605/2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2007 observing that the matter was pending in the aforesaid C.R.No.122/1999 before the Labour 51 Court, which would have to consider the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned orders while passing the award on the dispute referred to by the Central Government. It is therefore contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2605/2006 dated 14.08.2007, the Labour Court was directed to pass an award on all aspects of the dispute referred to by the Central Government as well as the aforesaid Communication dated 20.01.2006 of the Central Government and the Circular dated 01.02.2006 of the Respondent - Board withdrawing the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen.
7.4 It is further contended that the Labour Court committed an error in dismissing the reference without properly or correctly appreciating the material on record and the law applicable to the facts of the case. In this context, it is contended that it is permissible for the Labour Court to make a new contract / modify contract and give awards which may have the effect of extending existing agreement or making a new one, subject to the condition that the same should be in accordance with the 52 existing Industrial law. It is also contended that the Labour Court has wide powers in adjudicating disputes and rewrite contracts.
7.5 It is further contended that the judgment of the Madras High Court relied upon by the Labour Court is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and that in the light of the undisputed fact that the Respondent - Board itself extended the benefit of the scheme in favour of the petitioners in 2005 prior to the same being withdrawn and subsequently, having granted the benefit of the scheme in 2015, it was a fit case for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction and extend the benefit of the scheme in favour of the petitioners retrospectively.
In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following decisions:-
(i) Western India Automobile Association vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay - AIR 1949 Federal Court 111;
(ii) Bharat Bank Limited vs. Employees of Bharath Bank Limited - AIR 1950 SC 188;
(iii) Rohtas Industrials Ltd., vs. Brijanandan Pandey - AIR 1957 SC 1;53
(iv) M/s.Crown Aluminium Works vs. Workmen
- AIR 1958 SC 73;
(v) Patna Electric Supply Co., vs. Patna Electric Supply Union - AIR 1959 SC 1035;
(vi) Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited u Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others - AIR 1980 SC 1;
(vii) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana - (2009) 8 SCC 556; and
(viii) ONGC Ltd., vs. Federal Coal Labour Union
- (2015) 6 SCC 496.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent
- Board, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submitted that the petitioners do not have locus standi to file the present petition, since the petitioner - Union is not a registered Union as required under the Trade Unions Act, Rules and Regulations. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is correct, just and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for 54 the Respondent - Board has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) B. Srinivasa Reddy V. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association & Ors.- AIR 2006 SC 3106;
(ii) Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Bhanu Lodh and Ors. - AIR 2005 SC 2775
(iii) Punjab National Bank and others v.
Manjeet Singh and another - AIR 2007 SC
262.
(iv) Ceat Ltd., Vs. Murphy India Employees Union - AIR 2006 SC 2412, and
(v) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Management of M/s. Birla Cotton spinning and weaving Mills Ltd., & Others -AIR 2005 SC 1782.
(vi) Reepak Kansal v. Union and others -
(2021) 9 SCC 251;
(vii) The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Bhagwan & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7632- 7684/2021) Dated 10.01.2022;
(viii) State of Maharasthra and other vs. Anita and Another - (2016)8 SCC 293.
(ix) W.M. ANGANI v. Badri Das and others (C.A.NO. 881/1961) dated 25.03.1963
(x) Oil And Natural Gas Corporation v.
Krishna Gopal and others (Civil Appeal No. 1878/2016) dated 07.02.2020.
55(xi) The New Maneck Chowk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad and others v. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad (AIR 1961 SC 867).
(xii) B.N. Nagarajan and others v. State of Mysore and Ors (AIR 1966 SC 1942).
(xiii) Sukhdev Singh and Ors. V. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. (AIR 1975 SC 1331).
(xiv) Tulsi Das and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others (AIR 2003 SC 43).
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
10. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits, it is necessary to refer to the contentions urged by the Respondent - Board that the Employees' Union, which is the petitioner in W.P.No.20513/2007 does not have locus standi to prefer the said petition.
11. In this context, it is relevant to state that the petitioner - Union was the I party before the Tribunal, while the Respondent - Board was arrayed as II party. It is also relevant to state that apart from the Union, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.20513/2007, the Employees 56 have also preferred the connected W.P.No.19130/2007 challenging the impugned award of the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the various contentions urged by the Respondent - Board with reference to locus standi of the petitioners are without substance and devoid of merits and consequently, I am of the considered view that the impugned award which has been challenged by both the Union W.P.No.20513/2007 and the workmen themselves in W.P.No.19130/2007, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have locus standi to prefer the petitions and the said contention of the Respondent - Board cannot be accepted.
12. A perusal of the undisputed material on record indicate that on 25.11.2005, the Central Government issued a Communication to the respondent - Board approving implementation of the scheme in favour of the workmen. In pursuance of the same, the respondent -
Board issued a Circular dated 15.12.2005 granting extension of the benefits under the Scheme in favour of the workmen. Subsequently, on 29.12.2005, the Central Government addressed a communication to the Board in 57 this regard, to which the Respondent - Board sent a reply dated 30.12.2005 reiterating that since the Central Government had approved the proposal for grant of benefit as per the Communication dated 25.11.2005, it would be advisable to go ahead and implement the revision of wages as per the scheme.
13. As stated earlier, when the aforesaid approval dated 25.11.2005 extending the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen was granted by the Central Government, which was accepted and approved by the Respondent - Board also on 15.12.2005 when the instant dispute was pending before the Labour Court. On 10.01.2006, the Respondent - Board extended the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen by issuing Memorandums in this regard. However, the Central Government addressed a Communication dated 20.01.2006 intimating the Board that the approval granted on 25.11.2005 referred to supra had been withdrawn. In pursuance of the same, the respondent issued a Circular dated 01.02.2006 to the effect that the scheme would not be applicable to the workmen and that the office 58 Memorandums dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006 issued by the Board were withdrawn.
14. The aforesaid Circular dated 01.02.2006 issued by the Respondent - Board withdrawing the benefit of the scheme granted earlier in favour of the workmen was challenged in W.P.No.2605/2006, which was disposed of observing that the matter was pending before the Labour Court, who would have to consider the said aspect of the matter by passing an award.
15. A perusal of the impugned award will indicate that the Labour Court have come to the conclusion that the benefit of the scheme was not applicable to the workmen. In this context, the Labour Court placed reliance upon the order of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.17967/1997 dated 08.01.1998. Insofar as the subsequent event, which occurred during the pendency of the proceedings i.e., approval dated 25.11.2005 by the Central Government and confirmation by the Respondent
- Board on 15.12.2005, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the same was withdrawn by the Government of India and despite the liberty reserved in 59 favour of the petitioners to challenge the withdrawal before the Labour Court itself, the claim of the petitioners was liable to be rejected.
16. A perusal of the impugned award of the Labour Court will indicate that the Central Government approval dated 25.11.2005 and confirmation by the Respondent - Board on 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006 and the subsequent withdrawal on 20.01.2006 and 01.02.2006 respectively, have not been considered or properly appreciated by the Labour Court, thereby resulting in erroneous conclusion warranting interference in the present petitions.
17. In this context, a perusal of the withdrawal order of the Central Government dated 20.01.2006 (Annexure-R18 produced along with statement of objections in W.P.No.20513/2007) will clearly indicate that absolutely no reasons, much less, any valid or cogent reasons are assigned by the Central Government to withdraw the approval dated 25.11.2005 granted in favour of the workmen extending the benefit of the 60 scheme in favour of the workmen and consequently, the said withdrawal letter dated 20.01.2006 being unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking, the same deserves to be quashed. It follows there from that the Circular dated 01.02.2006 issued by the Respondent -
Board withdrawing the earlier Circulars dated 15.12.2005 and 10.11.2006 also deserves to be quashed and the same is only consequential to the Central Government circular dated 20.01.2006 referred to supra withdrawing the earlier approval.
18. The next question that arises for consideration is, whether the Labour Court would be entitled to pass an award making a new agreement / contract between the parties and whether this Court would be entitled to exercise its power and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this regard. The power of the Labour Court to make a fresh contract / agreement is no longer res integra in view of the judgments of the Federal Court and Apex Court referred to supra, wherein it is held that it is permissible for the Labour Court to make a new contract / modify contract and give awards which may 61 have the effect of extending existing agreement or making a new one, subject to the condition that the same should be in accordance with the existing Industrial law.
In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others - (2015) 6 SCC 494 (supra), after referring to its earlier judgments, the Apex Court held as under:-
"26. We have heard the factual and rival legal contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of both the parties and answer the same as discussed below.
Whether jurisdiction of the Tribunal to direct the Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen concerned in the posts is valid and legal?
27. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Act referred the existing industrial dispute between the workmen concerned and the Corporation to the Tribunal which rightly adjudicated Point (i) of the dispute (supra) on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and passed an award dated 26-5-1999 directing the Corporation that the services of the workmen concerned should be regularised with effect from the date on which all of them completed 480 days, subsequent to their appointment by the 62 memorandum of appointment. The contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the Tribunal has no power to pass such an award compelling the Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen concerned is wholly untenable in law. Even if we consider the same, the said contention is contrary to the legal principles laid down by this Court in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corpn. of India [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corpn. of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , wherein the decisions in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh [U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] and Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] and Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] were discussed in detail.
28. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corpn. of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC pp. 207-08, 210-11 & 212, paras 25, 30 & 33) "25. While accepting the submission of the appellant therein viz. U.P. Power Corpn., the Court gave the following reasons: (U.P. Power Corpn. case [U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli 63 Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] , SCC pp. 758-59, paras 6-8) '6. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the question as regards the effect of the industrial adjudicators' powers was not directly in issue in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . But the foundational logic in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though the industrial adjudicator can vary the terms of the contract of the employment, it cannot do something which is violative of Article 14. If the case is one which is covered by the concept of regularisation, the same cannot be viewed differently.
7. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that at the time the High Court decided the matter, decision in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was not rendered is really of no consequence. There cannot be a case of regularisation without there being employee-employer relationship. As noted above the concept of regularisation is clearly linked with Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if in a case the fact situation is covered by what is stated in para 45 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] the industrial adjudicator can modify the relief, but that does not dilute the observations made by this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] about the regularisation.
8. On facts it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Respondent 2 himself admitted that he never worked as a pump operator, but was engaged as daily 64 labourer on daily-wage basis. He also did not possess the requisite qualification. Looked at from any angle, the direction for regularisation, as given, could not have been given in view of what has been stated in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .' It is clear from the above that the Court recognised the underlying message contained in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] to the effect that regularisation of a daily wager, who has not been appointed after undergoing the proper selection procedure, etc. is impermissible as it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this principle predicated on Article 14 would apply to the Industrial Tribunal as well inasmuch as there cannot be any direction to regularise the services of a workman in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. As we would explain hereinafter, this would mean that the Industrial Court would not issue a direction for regularising the services of a daily-wage worker in those cases where such regularisation would tantamount to infringing the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. But for that, it would not deter the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts from issuing such direction, which the industrial adjudicators otherwise possess, having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act specifically conferring such powers. This is recognised by the Court even in the aforesaid judgment.
65*****
30. Detailed reasons are given in support of the conclusion stating that the MRTU and PULP Act provides for and empowers the Industrial/Labour Courts to decide about the unfair labour practice committed/being committed by any person and to declare a particular practice to be unfair labour practice if it so found and also to direct such person to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. The provisions contained in Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act giving such a power to the Industrial and Labour Courts vis-à-vis the ratio of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] are explained by the Court in the following terms: (Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , SCC pp. 573-74, paras 32-33 & 36)
32. 'The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and the affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and 66 Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
33. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred to, considered or decided in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks have been emphasised in Maharashtra SRTC case, (2009) 8 SCC
556.] Unfair labour practice [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks have been emphasised in Maharashtra SRTC case, (2009) 8 SCC
556.] on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 of the Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Bench.
***
36. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be held 67 to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and the PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.' ***
33. In this backdrop, the Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] was of the opinion that the direction of the Industrial Court to accord permanency to these employees against the posts which were available, was clearly permissible and within the powers, statutorily conferred upon the Industrial/Labour Courts under Section 30(1)(b) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 which enables the industrial adjudicator to take affirmative action against the erring employer and as those powers are of wide amplitude abrogating (sic including) within their fold a direction to accord permanency."
29. Further, it is very clear from the facts that all the workmen concerned have got the qualifications required for their regularisation, except one of them and have been employed by the Corporation even prior to 1985 in the posts through various irregular means. The Tribunal has got every power to adjudicate an industrial dispute and impose upon the employer new obligations to strike a balance and secure industrial peace and harmony between the employer and workmen and ultimately deliver social justice which is the constitutional mandate as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in a catena of cases. This abovesaid legal principle has been laid 68 down succinctly by this Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees [1950 SCC 470 : AIR 1950 SC 188] , the relevant paragraph of the said case is extracted hereunder: (AIR p. 209, para 61)
61. "We would now examine the process by which an Industrial Tribunal comes to its decisions and I have no hesitation in holding that the process employed is not judicial process at all. In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace. An industrial dispute as has been said on many occasions is nothing but a trial of strength between the employers on the one hand and the workmen's organisation on the other and the Industrial Tribunal has got to arrive at some equitable arrangement for averting strikes and lock-outs which impede production of goods and the industrial development of the country. The Tribunal is not bound by the rigid rules of law. The process it employs is rather an extended form of the process of collective bargaining and is more akin to administrative than to judicial function. In describing the true position of an Industrial Tribunal in dealing with labour disputes, this Court in Western India Automobile Assn. v. Industrial Tribunal [(1949-50) 11 FCR 321] quoted with approval a passage from Ludwig Teller's well-known work on the subject, where the learned author observes that: (FCR p.
345) 69 '... industrial arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement or the making of a new one, or in general the creation of new obligation or modification of old ones, while commercial arbitration generally concerns itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes relating to existing agreements.' The views expressed in these observations were adopted in its entirety by this Court. Our conclusion, therefore, is that an Industrial Tribunal formed under the Industrial Disputes Act is not a judicial tribunal and its determination is not a judicial determination in the proper sense of these expressions."
It has been further held by this Court in LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111] , as follows: (SCC p. 334, para 22)
22. "The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure, which seeks to pre-empt industrial tensions, provide the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the energies of the partners in production may not be dissipated in counterproductive battles and the assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill."
30. Thus, the powers of an Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute on the points of dispute referred to it by the appropriate government have been well established by the legal principles laid down by this Court in a catena of cases referred to supra. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed an award directing the Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen concerned.
70Whether the appointment of the workmen concerned in the services of the Corporation is irregular or illegal?
31. In the case on hand, the workmen concerned were employed by the Corporation initially through contractors. Thereafter, on issuance of the Notification dated 8-12-1976 by the Central Government abolishing contract labour for the posts of watch and ward, dusting and cleaning jobs in the Corporation under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Corporation and the workmen concerned arrived at a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act, wherein a cooperative society was formed in the name of "Thai Security Service Priyadarshini Indira Cooperative Society" for their welfare, thus dispensing with intermediary contractors. During the pendency of the sanction from the Central Government of the alleged "policy decision", the workmen concerned were appointed directly from 13-1-1988 to 29-2-1988 and thereafter, they were employed continuously without written orders by the Corporation. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation that the services of the workmen concerned cannot be regularised as their appointment was originally and initially through contractors and thereafter, without following any procedure of selection and appointment as per the Recruitment Rules and therefore, the same is illegal 71 by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in para 43 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Further, this Court in Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corpn. [(2015) 6 SCC 321 : (2014) 13 Scale 636] opined that when a workman is initially appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, then the employer at the time of re-employment of the retrenched workman cannot take the plea that the initial appointment was in violation of the abovementioned provisions. The relevant paragraph of Ajaypal Singh case [(2015) 6 SCC 321 : (2014) 13 Scale 636] is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 329, para 17)
17. "...The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject- matter for decision nor was it decided in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ."
The plea of the Corporation that the reason for not regularising the workmen concerned under the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation is allegedly due to the fact that the appointment of the workmen concerned was made without following due procedure under the Recruitment Rules and that their appointments were illegal. This plea cannot be accepted by us in view of the legal principle laid down by this Court in the above decision, wherein it is clearly laid down that the 72 Corporation cannot deny the rights of the workmen by taking the plea that their initial appointment was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
32. It is also contended on behalf of the Corporation that the right to be considered for regularisation by the Corporation as provided under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation does not mean right to regularisation and the discretion to regularise the workmen is with the Corporation as the same has to be exercised keeping in mind the interest of the organisation by implementing the alleged "policy decision" of appointing the CISF personnel to the security posts. This contention urged on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation cannot be accepted by us for the reason that even though due procedure was not followed by the Corporation for the appointment of the workmen concerned, this does not disentitle them of their right to seek regularisation of their services by the Corporation under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, after they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year from the date of the memorandum of appointment issued to each one of the workmen concerned in the year 1988. The alleged "policy decision" to appoint CISF personnel to the security post is on deputation basis and cannot be called appointment per se. Whereas, the workmen concerned have acquired their right to be regularised under the provision of Clause 2(ii) of the "Certified 73 Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission", which states thus:
"2. (i) Classification of workmen The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as:
(a) Temporary, and
(b) Casual
(ii) A workman who has been on the rolls of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee.
(iii) A workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as casual workman."
riting, give to the Corporation in respect of its affairs.
33. The above emphasised portion of Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders states that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days of attendance in any calendar period of 12 consecutive months, which is actually contrary to the provision under Section 25-B(2)(a) of the Act, which states that a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve 74 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine and two hundred and forty days in any other case. In any case, it is clear that the workmen concerned have clearly completed more than 240 days of services subsequent to the memorandum of appointment issued by the Corporation in the year 1988 in a period of twelve calendar months, therefore, they are entitled for regularisation of their services into permanent posts of the Corporation as per the Act as well as the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation.
34. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation that the policy decision to induct CISF for the purpose of providing security to its projects passed by the Corporation is an act by the Central Government under Section 30-A of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (for short "the ONGC Act"), which Parliament by way of Enactment No. 23 of 1977 inserted after Section 30 of the principal Act. The said provision states that the Corporation shall be bound by such directions, including directions regarding reservation of posts for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, as the Central Government may from time to time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, give to the Corporation in respect of its affairs.
7535. For the Corporation to implement such a provision which affects the service conditions of its employees, it is necessary for the Corporation to first modify the Certified Standing Orders by following the procedure provided under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as the same is a special enactment and therefore, prevails over the provisions under the ONGC Act and the Recruitment Rules. The Corporation undisputedly has not made any such modification to its Certified Standing Orders by following the procedure for modification of conditions of service as per Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The scope of the said Act has been succinctly laid down by this Court in U.P. SEB v. Hari Shankar Jain [(1978) 4 SCC 16 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 481] , upon which decision the learned Senior Counsel Mr C.U. Singh has rightly placed reliance. The relevant paragraphs of the said case are extracted hereunder:
(SCC pp. 24-26, 28 & 29, paras 6, 10 & 13)
6. "Let us now examine the various statutory provisions in their proper context with a view to resolve the problem before us. First, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Before the passing of the Act, conditions of service of industrial employees were invariably ill-defined and were hardly ever known with even a slight degree of precision to the employees. There was no uniformity of conditions of service for employees discharging identical duties in the same establishment.
Conditions of service were generally ad hoc and the result of oral arrangements which left the employees at the mercy of the employer. With 76 the growth of the trade union movement and the right of collective bargaining, employees started putting forth their demands to end this sad and confusing state of affairs. Recognising the rough deal that was being given to workers by employers who would not define their conditions of service and the inevitability of industrial strife in such a situation, the legislature intervened and enacted the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. It was stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons:
'Experience has shown that "Standing Orders", defining the conditions of recruitment, discharge, disciplinary action, holidays, leave, etc., go a long way towards minimising friction between the management and workers in industrial undertakings. Discussion on the subject at the tripartite Indian Labour Conferences revealed a consensus of opinion in favour of legislation. The Bill accordingly seeks to provide for the framing of "Standing Orders" in all industrial establishments employing one hundred and more workers.' It was, therefore, considered, as stated in the Preamble 'expedient to require employers in industrial establishments to define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment under them and to make the said conditions known to workmen employed by them'. The Scheme of the Act, as amended in 1956 and as it now stands, requires every employer of an industrial establishment as defined in the Act to submit to the Certifying Officer Draft Standing Orders, that is, 'Rules relating to matters set out in the Schedule', proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. This is mandatory. It has to be done within six months after the commencement of the Act. Failure to do so is punishable and is further made a continuing offence. The Draft Standing Orders are required to cover every matter set out in the Schedule. The Schedule enumerates the matters to be provided in the Standing Orders and they 77 include classification of workmen, shift working, attendance and late coming, leave and holidays, termination of employment, suspension or dismissal for misconduct, means of redress for wronged workmen, etc. Item 11 of the Schedule is 'Any other matter which may be prescribed'. By a Notification dated 17-11-1959 the Government of Uttar Pradesh has prescribed 'Age of superannuation or retirement, rate of pension or any other facility which the employer may like to extend or may be agreed upon between the parties' as a matter requiring to be provided in the Standing Orders. On receipt of the Draft Standing Orders from the employee, the Certifying Officer is required to forward a copy of the same to the trade union concerned or the workmen inviting them to prefer objections, if any. Thereafter the Certifying Officer is required to give a hearing to the employer and the trade union or workmen as the case may be and to decide 'whether or not any modification of or addition to the draft submitted by the employer is necessary to render the Draft Standing Orders certifiable under the Act'. Standing Orders are certifiable under the Act only if provision is made therein for every matter set out in the Schedule, if they are in conformity with the provisions of the Act and if the Certifying Officer adjudicates them as fair and reasonable. The Certifying Officer is invested with the powers of a civil court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, etc. etc. The order of the Certifying Officer is subject to an appeal to the prescribed appellate authority. The Standing Orders as finally certified are required to be entered in a register maintained by the Certifying Officer. The employer is required to prominently post the Certified Standing Orders on special boards maintained for that purpose. This is the broad scheme of the Act. The Act also provides for exemptions. About that, later. The Act, as originally enacted, precluded the Certifying Officer from adjudicating upon the fairness or 78 reasonableness of the Draft Standing Orders submitted by the employer but an amendment introduced in 1956 now casts a duty upon the Certifying Officer to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the Draft Standing Orders. The Scheme of the Act has been sufficiently explained by this Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. P.D. Vyas [AIR 1960 SC 665] , Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [AIR 1966 SC 1471] and Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [(1974) 3 SCC 330 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 531] . The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is thus seen to be an Act specially designed to define the terms of employment of workmen in industrial establishments, to give the workmen a collective voice in defining the terms of employment and to subject the terms of employment to the scrutiny of quasi-judicial authorities by the application of the test of fairness and reasonableness. It is an Act giving recognition and form to hard won and precious rights of workmen. We have no hesitation in saying that it is a special Act expressly and exclusively dealing with the schedule- enumerated conditions of service of workmen in industrial establishments.
***
10. We have already shown that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is a special Act dealing with a specific subject, namely, the conditions of service, enumerated in the Schedule, of workmen in industrial establishments. It is impossible to conceive that Parliament sought to abrogate the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act embodying as they do hard won and precious rights of workmen and prescribing as they do an elaborate procedure, including a quasi-judicial determination, by a general, incidental provision like Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act.
It is obvious that Parliament did not have before it the Standing Orders Act when it passed the 79 Electricity (Supply) Act and Parliament never meant that the Standing Orders Act should stand pro tanto repealed by Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. We are clearly of the view that the provisions of the Standing Orders Act must prevail over Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, in regard to matters to which the Standing Orders Act applies.
***
13. Next, we turn to the submission based on the notification made under Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act. Section 13-B reads as follows:
'13-B.Act not to apply to certain industrial establishments.--Nothing in this Act shall apply to an industrial establishment insofar as the workmen employed therein are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.'"
36. In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the abovesaid case, the alleged policy decision taken under Section 30-A of the ONGC Act does not prevail over the Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which is the special enactment. Therefore, the alleged "policy decision" taken by the Corporation is neither valid in law nor applicable in the case on hand.80
37. The legal principle laid down in U.P. SEB v. Hari Shankar Jain [(1978) 4 SCC 16 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 481] were reiterated by this Court in Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tisco Ltd. [(1984) 3 SCC 369 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 540] , wherein it was held thus: (Sudhir Chandra Sarkar case [(1984) 3 SCC 369 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 540] , SCC pp. 377-78, para 11) "11. Parliament enacted the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 ('the 1946 Act', for short). The long title of the Act provides that it was an act to require employers in industrial establishments formally to define conditions of employment under them. The Preamble of the Act provides that it is expedient to require employers in industrial establishments to define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment under them and to make the said conditions known to workmen employed by them. By Section 3, a duty was cast on the employer governed by the Act to submit to the Certifying Officer Draft Standing Orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. After going through the procedure prescribed in the Act, the Certifying Officer has to certify the Draft Standing Orders. Section 8 requires the Certifying Officer to keep a copy of Standing Orders as finally certified under the Act in a register to be maintained for the purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 imposes a penalty on employer who does any act in contravention of the Standing Orders finally certified under the Act. The Act was a legislative response to the laissez faire rule of hire and fire at sweet will. It was an attempt at imposing a statutory contract of service between two parties unequal to negotiate, on the footing of equality. This was vividly noticed by this Court in Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [(1974) 3 SCC 330 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 531] as under: (SCC p. 334, para 10) 81 '10. In the sunny days of the market economy theory people sincerely believed that the economic law of demand and supply in the labour market would settle a mutually beneficial bargain between the employer and the workmen. Such a bargain, they took it for granted, would secure fair terms and conditions of employment to the workman. This law they venerated as natural law. They had an abiding faith in the verity of this law. But the experience of the working of this law over a long period has belied their faith.' The intendment underlying the Act and the provisions of the Act enacted to give effect to the intendment and the Scheme of the Act leave no room for doubt that the Standing Orders certified under the 1946 Act become part of the statutory terms and conditions of service between the employer and his employee and they govern the relationship between the parties. Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. [(1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 341] , Workmen v. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills [(1970) 1 LLJ 26 (SC)] and Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer [(1984) 1 SCC 1 :
1984 SCC (L&S) 42] ."
38. Further, on the direction of this Court after concluding the submissions made in this appeal, the learned counsel on behalf of the Corporation was directed [ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, SLP (C) No. 5532 of 2012, order dated 25-3-2015 (SC)] to submit a copy of the policy of the Government of India for the year 1982 along with the affidavit of the responsible officer of the Corporation.
The learned counsel has accordingly produced the "Government Policies and Guidelines for Public Sector Enterprises and Perceptions on Public Sector 82 of PSE Chiefs and the Scope (Vol. I) compiled by Dr Raj Nigam" containing a gist of BPE OM No. 2(97)/72-BPE(GM-I) dated 5-12-1972 and BPE OM No. 2(38)/75-BPE(GM-I) dated 17-5-1975 in Guidelines 421 and 422 respectively, as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 25-3-2015 [ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, SLP (C) No. 5532 of 2012, order dated 25-3-2015 (SC)] . In this regard, to examine the tenability of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation the relevant portion of the abovementioned document is extracted hereunder to consider the contention urged in this regard:
"421. Security arrangements in public enterprises Ministries, etc. are aware that a force called the Central Industrial Security Force has been constituted under the Ministry of Home Affairs for the security of industrial undertakings of the Central Government.
The question of evolving a uniform procedure in regard to the deployment of the Force and in providing security arrangements in the various undertakings has been under consideration of the Government particularly with a view to ensuring better coordination between the IG, CISF and the administrative Ministries/public enterprises. It has been decided that the following steps should be taken in this regard:
(i) There should be close association between CISF and a public enterprise, right from its inception. In other words, as soon as a new enterprise is sanctioned, information about such sanction should be sent automatically to the IG, 83 CISF so that he can start liaison from the very outset, with the officials concerned in the Ministry concerned and the Chief Executive of the project as soon as he is appointed.
(ii) No new enterprise should appoint its own Watch and Ward Security staff, even during construction stage unless a clearance has been obtained from the IG, CISF that he is not in a position to take over the security functions of the enterprise from the very beginning.
(iii) Whenever an investment decision is cleared at the level of the Public Investment Board an intimation that such a project has been cleared, should be sent to IG, CISF.
Ministries, etc. are to take necessary action accordingly.
422. Security arrangements in public enterprises The DIG, CISF in a recent communication to the Bureau of Public Enterprises has pointed out that a number of undertaking have been employing their own watch and ward personnel without obtaining clearance from CISF Headquarters, in contravention of the Guidelines issued vide BPE OM No. 2(97)/72-BPE(GM-I) dated 5-12-1972.
It is once again reiterated that it is the statutory duty not only of CISF but also of the public sector undertakings to induct CISF for better protection and security of the industrial undertakings.
The administrative Ministries may impress upon the public units under their administrative control not covered in the enclosed list (not given here), the need for the early induction of CISF in the units provide better security arrangements. The units may be advised to contact IG, CISF, 183 Jor Bagh, New Delhi without any further delay for finalising the arrangements."
8439. Further, the learned counsel on record for the Corporation has also submitted the sanction letter for creation of temporary posts for the security coverage of the ONGC installation by the Central Government, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
"To The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, 13-CGO's Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
Subject: Creation of temporary posts for the security coverage of ONGC installations at Madras, Visakhapatnam and Nursapur & Razole Area.
With reference to your UO No. 29013/6/85-Ind-I dated 31-10-1985, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the creation of the following temporary posts for the security coverage of ONGC installations at Madras, Vishakhapatnam and Nursapur & Razole Area in the existing pay scales with usual allowances from the date(s) and the post(s) are filled in till the 28th February, .........
This issue with the concurrence of Integrated Finance Division vide their Dy. No. 3057/85-Fin. III (D-I) dated 12-12-1985.
Yours faithfully, (N.B. Kumar) Under-Secretary to the Government of India"
40. We have perused the above two documents. The abovementioned sanction letter by the Central Government is for the creation of temporary posts for the security coverage of ONGC installation and not to depute CISF specifically into security posts in the Corporation, therefore, the reliance placed on the 85 same in support of the contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation is misplaced as the same is wholly untenable in law as the same is not reflected in the sanction letter referred to supra. Further, the abovementioned guidelines cannot be considered to be the policy of the Central Government as it is not framed in accordance with the relevant "Business Transaction Rules" of the Central Government. Therefore, we are of the considered view that even if for the sake of argument, the decision to employ the CISF personnel into security posts of the Corporation is considered as the policy decision of the Corporation, the provision under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders surely overrides the policy decision, as the said clause is not amended by following the provisions of the 1946 Act and therefore, the said argument does not hold water as the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation as per the judgments of this Court referred to supra and the principle of law laid down in those cases are aptly applicable to the fact situation of the workmen concerned for their regularisation in the security posts of the Corporation.
41. As we have already stated that the alleged policy documents produced by the Corporation as per the direction of this Court is traceable to Section 30-A of the ONGC Act enacted by Parliament as per the contention urged on behalf of the Corporation. Therefore, the contention that the said policy is binding upon the Corporation and the workmen 86 concerned is wholly untenable in law for more than one reason which we have stated above. The said document cannot be said to be the policy framed by the Central Government represented by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which is an independent ministry having the power to formulate and administer various Central laws relating to petroleum and natural gas, however, the same must be executed in the name of the President of India and shall be authenticated in such a manner as specified in the relevant "Business Transaction Rules". In the instant case, the alleged policy formulated by the Central Government has not been issued by following the due procedure as provided under the "Business Transaction Rules". For this reason also, the said document produced by the learned counsel for the Corporation to justify the alleged policy being applicable to the workmen concerned cannot be called as the policy document passed under Section 30-A of the Act by the Central Government and moreover, the same was not incorporated by way of an amendment to the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation by following the procedure as provided under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
42. The reliance placed upon these documents by the Corporation in justification of their claim that the workmen concerned are not entitled to be regularised in their services as permanent employees in their 87 posts as per the award passed by the Tribunal is misplaced and wholly untenable in law. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted by this Court. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
43. Further, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation do not apply to the workmen concerned to claim regularisation in their posts as regular employees as provided under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. The said contention is wholly untenable in law as the Standing Orders of the Corporation certainly apply to the workmen concerned as they have been rendering their services in the Corporation even prior to the year 1985, being appointed through contractors, the Cooperative Society and directly thereafter vide memorandum of appointment in the year 1988 by issuing appointment orders on different dates during that year on the condition that the Certified Standing Orders of ONGC will not be applicable to them. Such a condition incorporated in the appointment orders issued to the workmen concerned is not valid in law and the same is void for the reason that they are workmen for the purpose of the Certified Standing Orders and therefore, the abovesaid condition has to be ignored. When the workmen concerned were appointed by issuing the memorandum of appointment to work in the posts of the Corporation, 88 providing them with monthly salaries, it cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally state that the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation are not applicable to the workmen concerned. The workmen concerned cannot be denied their legitimate, statutory and fundamental right to be regularised in their posts as provided under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders on the basis of the abovesaid contention urged on their behalf and also because the Corporation did not follow the due procedure as provided under the Appointment and Recruitment Rules for appointment of the workmen concerned in the Corporation. The said contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation is an afterthought to justify their irregular act of appointing them as temporary workmen and continuing them as such for a number of years though they are entitled for regularisation under Clause 2(ii) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation, which action of it amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Act, read with the provisions of Sections 25-T and 25- U of the Act, which prohibits such employment in the Corporation. It would be unjust and unfair to deny them regularisation in their posts for the error committed by the Corporation in the procedure to appoint them in the posts. Further, the Corporation cannot use the alleged "policy decision" as a veil to justify its action which included inaction on its part in not regularising the workmen concerned in their 89 services under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders.
44. In light of the abovesaid discussion and legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, we are of the considered view that the procedure of appointments adopted by the Corporation with respect to the workmen concerned initially appointed through contractors, subsequently through the Cooperative Society, and then vide memorandum of appointment issued to each one of the workmen concerned in the year 1988 and thereafter, continuing them in their services in the posts by the Corporation without following any procedure as contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation whose contention is untenable in law and their appointment can be said as irregular appointments but not as illegal as the same was not objected to by any other authority of the Corporation at any point of time. But their appointment in their posts and continuing them in their services is definitely cannot be termed as illegal, at best it can be called irregular. Therefore, the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation by all means apply to the workmen concerned.
45. The legal contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the statutory right claimed by the workmen concerned under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation for regularising them in their posts as regular employees 90 after rendering 240 days of service in a calendar is not an absolute right conferred upon them and their right is only to consider their claim. This plea of the learned Senior Counsel cannot again be accepted by us for the reason that the Corporation is bound by law to take its decision to regularise the services of the workmen concerned as regular employees as provided under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders after their completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year as they have acquired valid statutory right. This should have been positively considered by the Corporation and granted the status of regular employees of the Corporation for the reason that it cannot act arbitrarily and unreasonably deny the same especially it being a corporate body owned by the Central Government and an instrumentality of the State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, it is governed by Part III of the Constitution. The Corporation should exercise its power fairly and reasonably in accordance with law. This has not been done by the Corporation as per the law laid down by this Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [(1985) 3 SCC 545] wherein it was held as under:
(SCC pp. 577-78, para 40)
40. "Just as a mala fide act has no existence in the eye of law, even so, unreasonableness vitiates law and procedure alike. It is therefore essential that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his fundamental right, in this case the right to life, must conform to the norms of justice and fair play.
Procedure, which is unjust or unfair in the 91 circumstances of a case, attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and consequently, the action taken under it. Any action taken by a public authority which is invested with statutory powers has, therefore, to be tested by the application of two standards: the action must be within the scope of the authority conferred by law and secondly, it must be reasonable. If any action, within the scope of the authority conferred by law, is found to be unreasonable, it must mean that the procedure established by law under which that action is taken is itself unreasonable. The substance of the law cannot be divorced from the procedure which it prescribes for, how reasonable the law is, depends upon how fair is the procedure prescribed by it. Sir Raymond Evershed [The Influence of Remedies on Rights (Current Legal Problems) Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5532 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 11-8-2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1006 of 2011] says that, 'from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, it is the procedure that will most strongly weigh with him. He will tend to form his judgment of the excellence or otherwise of the legal system from his personal knowledge and experience in seeing the legal machine at work'. Therefore, 'he that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword' [ Per Frankfurter, J. in Vitarelli v. Seaton, 3 L Ed 2d 1012 : 359 US 535 (1959)] ."
46. Therefore, the workmen concerned have approached the Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute regarding the regularisation of their services in the Corporation. The same has been properly adjudicated by the Tribunal based on pleadings, evidence on record and in accordance with law.
92Therefore, the same cannot be found fault with by this Court in this appeal.
47. Further, the contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the workmen concerned do not possess the required qualifications for their respective posts, in this regard, we have gone through the facts recorded by the courts below in comparison with the "Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission" framed and published with previous approval of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 32 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959, and we are fully satisfied that all of the workmen concerned barring just one of the workmen concerned have all the qualifications required to be regularised in the permanent posts of the Corporation as regular employees.
48. Further, it has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation that in the absence of any plea taken by the workmen in their claim statement regarding unfair labour practice being committed by the Corporation against the workmen concerned, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench ought not to have entertained the said plea as it is a well-settled principle of law that such plea must be pleaded and established by a party who relies upon it before the Tribunal. In support of the above contention reliance was placed by him on the decision of this Court in Siemens Ltd. v.
93Employees Union [(2011) 9 SCC 775 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 593] .
49. The said contention of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation is wholly untenable in law and the reliance placed on the aforesaid case is misplaced for the reason that it is an undisputed fact that the workmen have been appointed on term basis vide memorandum of appointment issued to each one of the workmen concerned in the year 1988 by the Corporation who continued their services for several years. Thereafter, they were denied their legitimate right to be regularised in the permanent posts of the Corporation. The said fact was duly noted by the High Court as per the contention urged on behalf of the Corporation and held on the basis of facts and evidence on record that the same attracts entry Item 10 of Schedule V of the Act, in employing the workmen concerned as temporary employees against permanent posts who have been doing perennial nature of work and continuing them as such for number of years. We affirm the same as it is a clear case of an unfair labour practice on the part of the Corporation as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Act, which is statutorily prohibited under Section 25-T of the Act and the said action of the Corporation warrants penalty to be imposed upon it under Section 25-U of the Act. In fact, the said finding of fact has been recorded by both the learned Single Judge and 94 the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment [ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1150] on the ground urged on behalf of the Corporation. Even if this Court eschews the said finding and reason recorded in the impugned judgment [ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1150] accepting the hypertechnical plea urged on behalf of the Corporation that there is no plea of unfair labour practice made in the claim statement, this Court in this appeal cannot interfere with the award of the Tribunal and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court for the other reasons assigned by them for granting relief to the workmen concerned. Even in the absence of plea of an act of unfair labour practice committed by the Corporation against the workmen concerned, the Labour Court/High Court have got the power to record the finding of fact on the basis of the record of the Conciliation Officer to ensure that there shall be effective adjudication of the industrial dispute to achieve industrial peace and harmony in the industry in the larger interest of public, which is the prime object and intendment of the Industrial Disputes Act. This principle of law has been well established in a catena of cases of this Court. In the instant case, the commission of an unfair labour practice in relation to the workmen concerned by the Corporation is ex facie clear from the facts pleaded by both the parties and therefore, the courts have the power to adjudicate the same effectively to resolve 95 the dispute between the parties even in the absence of plea with regard to such an aspect of the case.
50. For the reasons recorded in this judgment, we hold that the judgments and orders of both the learned Single Judge [ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, WP No. 1846 of 2011, order dated 4-1- 2011 (Mad)] and the Division Bench [ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1150] of the High Court in favour of the workmen concerned are legal and valid. The High Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Corporation by affirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal must fail and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Since the industrial dispute between the parties has been litigated for the last 25 years, it would be just and proper for this Court to give directions as hereunder:
50.1. The Corporation is directed to comply with the terms and conditions of the award passed by the Tribunal and regularise the services of the workmen concerned in their posts and compute the back wages, monetary benefits and other consequential monetary benefits including terminal benefits payable to the workmen concerned on the basis of the periodical revision of pay scales applicable from the date of their entitlement, namely, by regularising them in their services after their completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year in the Corporation as provided under Clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing 96 Orders, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
50.2. If the Corporation fails to comply with the above given directions, the back wages shall be paid to the workmen concerned with an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The Corporation is further directed to submit the compliance report for perusal of this Court after the expiry of the said eight weeks. There shall be no order as to costs."
19. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the report submitted by the Committee, the Respondent - Board in its 115th Meeting dated 19.03.2005 passed an unanimous Resolution resolving and deciding to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen of the Respondent - Board. The said Resolution passed by the Respondent - Board was approved by the Central Government vide approval dated 25.11.2005 and vide Communications dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006, both the Central Government and Respondent - Board granted approval for extension of the scheme in favour of the workmen. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was fully empowered and authorised to make / pass an award implementing 97 and extending the benefit of the scheme to the workmen also.
20. As stated supra, despite having approved and granted the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen, the Central Government chose to unilaterally withdraw the same by passing the impugned order by issuing the communication dated 20.01.2006 followed by the Board's Circular dated 01.02.2006 without assigning any reason whatsoever and the same is illegal and arbitrary withdrawal is another circumstance leading to the sole conclusion that the workmen would be entitled to extension of the benefit of the scheme by extending the benefit of the scheme from 19.03.2005 onwards when the Respondent - Board resolved and decided to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen.
21. To put it differently, having regard to the undisputed fact that the Committee submitted a favourable report recommending implementation of the scheme which was accepted by the Respondent- Board which passed a Resolution on 19.03.2005, pursuant to 98 which, the Central Government granted approval on 25.11.2005 which was thereafter accepted and confirmed by the Respondent - Board by issuing Circulars dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006, I am of the considered opinion that in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case, it would be just and appropriate to direct implementation of the scheme with retrospective effect from 19.03.2005 when the Respondent - Board resolved to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen.
22. The material on record also undisputedly establishes that during the pendency of the present petitions, the Central Government extended the benefit of the scheme on 11.06.2015 and the same has not been withdrawn. Viewed from this angle also, it is necessary to pass an award by extending the benefit of the scheme in favour of the petitioners from 25.11.2005 when the Central Government granted approval.
23. Apart from the fact that the Labour Court is empowered to pass an award modifying an agreement or 99 forming a new agreement, bearing in mind the existing Industrial Laws , the power of this Court to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also well settled as held by the Apex Court in various judgments including the judgment in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes's case (supra).
24. Insofar as the contention of the Respondent -
Board that having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi -
(2006) 4 SCC 1, the scheme cannot be extended to the workmen of the Respondent - Board is concerned, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in ONGC's case (supra), which has considered Uma Devi's case also, the said contention of the Respondent
- Board cannot be accepted.
25. Insofar as the judgment of the Madras High Court relied upon by the Respondent - Board is concerned, a perusal of the same will indicate that the claim of the workmen has been rejected on the ground that nothing was placed before the Court to indicate that 100 the Respondent - Board had adopted the scheme in respect of its employees. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said judgment was rendered on 08.01.1998, much prior to the Resolution dated 19.03.2005 passed by the Respondent - Board and consequently, the said judgment is clearly not applicable to the facts of the instant case and the Labour Court clearly erred in placing reliance upon the said judgment, which has resulted in erroneous conclusion.
26. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly indicate that having resolved, decided, accepted and confirmed that the workmen were entitled to the benefit of the scheme as can be seen from the Resolution dated 19.03.2005, Circulars dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006 and other documents etc., the Respondent - Board was estopped from contending that the workmen were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme and the defence of the Respondent - Board is clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver.
However, though the dispute was referred by the Central Government to the Labour Court in 1999 itself, 101 subsequent to the scheme coming into force w.e.f.
10.09.1993, in the facts of the instant case, I deem it just and appropriate to direct implementation of the scheme and grant / extend benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen of the Respondent - Board retrospectively from 19.03.2005 when the Respondent - Board resolved and decided to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen.
27. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent - Board is concerned, having regard to my findings recorded above, in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case, the said judgments are not applicable to the case on hand and may not be necessary to be referred to in detail.
28. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Both the petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2007 passed in C.R.No.122/1999 by the Central 102 Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The reference dated 16.11.1999 made by the Central Government stands allowed in part;
(iv) The Respondent - Board is hereby directed to implement, grant and extend the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, in favour of the petitioners and all other workmen of the Respondent - Board together with all benefits accruing there from for the period from 19.03.2005 onwards and settle all the dues in their favour as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.