Delhi District Court
8.2011 With Following Terms Of The ... vs . on 1 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
OLD CASE
Ref. No.: F.24/(14)/11/Lab./CD/53
Dated : 01.08.2011
NEW ID NO. 259/2016
OLD ID NO. 139/2011
Workmen
Sh. Hardwari Lal & 398 Ors.
As represented by
Sir, Ganga Ram Hospital Employees Union,
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi - 110060.
Vs.
The Managements of
1. M/s Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi - 110060.
2. M/s Zee Ten Services,
303-A, Shahpur Jat,
Near Khel Gaon,
New Delhi - 110049.
3. M/s Helpline Hospitality (Pvt.) Ltd.,
T-1433/1, 2nd Floor, Lane No. 7,
Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi - 110003.
Date of Institution : 10.08.2011
Date of presentation : 27.03.2023
before this court
Date of Arguments : 06.06.2023
Date of Award : 01.07.2023
AWAR D
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 1 out of 57
parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal vide
notification bearing No. F.24/(14)/11/Lab./CD/53, Dated
01.08.2011 with following terms of the reference:-
"Whether there existed an employer
employees relationship between the
management no.1 i.e. M/s Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital (Principal Employer) and the
workmen as per Annexure 'A' and if so;
whether the demand for regularization of
these workmen employed by the
management no.2 M/s Zee Ten Services
(Contractor) and management no.3 M/s
Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
(Contractor) on the post in proper pay
scale against the management no.1 M/s
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (Principal
Employer) is justified and if so; to what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workmen
as mentioned in the Annexure A to the aforementioned reference
sent by the Labour Department, whereby it is pleaded that The
Claimant Union pleaded that it raised an industrial dispute on
behalf of its member vide demand notice dated 17.05.2010
addressed and sent to all the three managements duly served
upon them. None of the managements accepted any of the
demands, therefore, the union filed a statement of claim before
the Conciliation officer.
3. It is further pleaded that Statement of Claim filed before
the Conciliation officer was filed alongwith proof of espousal of
the cause and the demand notice. All the managements were
summoned who filed their respective replies and did not co-
operate in settlement of disputes amicably. In the given
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 2 out of 57
circumstances the appropriate Government referred the dispute
vide Reference Order dated 01.08.2011 for adjudication.
4 The Union further pleaded that Shri Mangal Singh was
the General Secretary of the Union and was duly competent to
raise the present industrial dispute. Therefore the present
statement of claim was filed by him for and on behalf of the
workmen whose names with designation and date of joining is
given in Annexure A which is annexed to the Term of Reference
sent by the appropriate government. The Union is duly
recognized by the management, who has provided space to union
for its activities.
5. The case of the Union is that the Management no.1 has
employed all persons mentioned in Annexure A against the
regular and perennial and permanent nature of job, but treated
them initially as Daily Wagers and later on, deceitfully with
malafide intentions, converted them as contractors' employees by
entering into agreements with outside agencies. The management
no.2 and 3 were shown as contractors at the time of raising the
dispute whereas prior to these alleged contractors others namely;
M/s. Vipul Facility Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) Pvt.
Ltd. etc. were shown as contractors. It is claimed that all the
persons mentioned in Annexure A remained in continuous
employment from the date of their initial joining. The
management No. 1 is circumventing the manner of their
deployment by engaging various contractors, from time to time
and upon such changes the PF and ESI numbers of the
employees/claimants are being changed. It was claimed by the
Union that this is not only an act of Unfair Labour Practices but
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 3 out of 57
also victimization of workers.
6. It is the case of the Union that the agreement/contract
between the Management No.1 and Management No.2 and 3 are
violative of social justice and solely arrived at to deny the
permanent status to the employees and more particularly the
persons as given in the Annexure-A. This is violative of
employment norms as no employer can employ any employee on
contract basis on regular, perennial and permanent nature of job.
Further the agreements are in violation of Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Thus the
contract/agreement executed between aforesaid managements
and all agreements prior thereto executed between the
Management No.1 and other alleged contractors are in fact sham,
bogus & camouflage and it creates a smoke screen under the garb
of having alleged licences. The resorting to the contract system is
for the purpose of denying all statutory benefits to the workers
more precisely all claimants.
7. It was further pleaded that the Management No.1 is also
known for anti government and anti labour policies as they have
been given land to run hospitals by the government on
concessional rates. The said management in turn has been
indulging in exploitation of the workers by denial of statutory
entitlement. Since the Management No. 1 is running on the land
given on concessional rates, hence this practice amounts to
violation of the mandate of the state to ensure social order by
promotion of welfare of workers.
8. The Union pleaded that the denial of the relationship of
employer and employee between the Management No.1 and the
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 4 out of 57
Claimants is intentional, willful, with a view to exploit the
workers and to deny them security, permanency, regularization in
the employment. It is claimed that all claimants, since their initial
appointment, have been performing the work of the Management
No. 1 exclusively at its premises and discharging their duties
under the supervision, guidance & control of the Management
No.1 and have been performing duties as provided by the
Management No.1 in its premises with its tools and equipments.
Though the Management No. 1 has been maintaining records on
its own with an oblique motive to deny the employer-employee
relationship.
9. The Union pleaded that the Management No.1 has
adopted unfair labour practices as they have permanent/perennial
work for the persons and has employed a number of persons as
their direct employees as Ward Boys, House Lady (Safal
Karamchari). Mall, Ward Girls (Ward Aayas), Lift Operator,
Pantry Boy, House Boy (Safai Karmachari, Supervisor, Bearer)
on these posts whereas the Management No. 1 has kept the
claimants as contractors' employees. Keeping the claimants as
contractor employees is an act of victimization and adoption of
unfair labour practice. It is claimed that the economic
exploitations of the claimants is writ large by denial of employer-
employee relationship. It is alleged that the denial of justice and
exploitation of claimants is proven from the admitted facts to the
effect that the claimants perform the same job for the same
duration as performed by regular employees, but the claimants
are being paid only the minimum wages as prescribed by the
Govt. of Delhi from time to time, whereas all other employees
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 5 out of 57
employed directly in same category are being paid Central
Government pay scales alongwith other benefits such as leave,
bonus, rest rooms, medical facilities to them as well as their
dependants.
10. It is claimed that this practice establishes economic as
well as social discrimination and violation of equality of status.
The Union relied upon Rule 25 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, to claim that the
denial of equal statutory wages amounts to denial of right of
equality in violation of the Constitution of India.
11. It is further pleaded that the claimants are integral part of
the work of the establishment; ie. the Management No. 1. The
Claimants, being unequal partners of the industry who invest
blood and flesh, therefore, are required to be protected against
the Management which only brings the capital. The workmen /
claimants are illegally deprived of their rightful claim of
permanency, right to equal pay for equal work by circumventing
the system by using contracts as a device.
12. The Union pleaded that the contractors have been
introduced by the Management No. 1 in order to deprive the
workmen herein the benefits of regular employment and as a
smoke screen to evade compliance with various labour
legislations. However, in practical day to day working the
workmen herein are working under the direct supervision and
control of the Management No. 1 and its officers. In day to day
functioning the workmen here are given instructions by the
Management and its officers, their work are being directly
supervised by the officers of the Management No. 1 and its
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 6 out of 57
officers directly, their work is directly supervised by the
Management No. 1 and its officials, the attendance record of the
workmen is maintained by the Management directly. The
workman herein have been working with the Management No. 1
alongwith the permanent employees of the Management No. 1
and the same work is being taken from the contract labour which
is of permanent and perennial nature. Therefore the contractor
has no role whatsoever to play and there is a direct employer and
employee relationship between the management No. 1 and
workman directly.
13. It was further pleaded that some of the workmen were
earlier also working with the Management No. 1 and their
attendance were being marked on the attendance register of the
permanent employees of the hospital and subsequently they were
transferred on the rolls of the contractors, above-named, without
any consent / knowledge of the workmen, which was illegal, per
se. The workmen herein were used to mark attendance on the
attendance sheet of the hospital.
14. The Union prayed to declare the existence of employer
& employee relationship between the Management No. 1; i.e.
M/s. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Claimants / Workmen; as
details given in Annexure A of term of reference from the date of
their initial employment. It is also prayed that the Claimants /
Workmen as details given in Annexure A of term of reference be
declared to be entitled for regularization of their services with the
Management No. 1; i.e. M/s. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and are
entitled for the placement on a regular post in proper pay scale &
other benefits as provided by the Management No. 1; i.e. Sir
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 7 out of 57
Ganga Ram Hospital to its regular, permanent employees
engaged for similar nature of work as discharged & performed by
the Claimants/Workmen as mentioned in Annexure-A of term of
reference.
15. Separate written statements were filed by all the
managements wherein all the managements have denied the
claim of the workmen and reiterated their claim.
16. The Management No. 1 filed reply to the statement of
claim filed by the Union wherein it took preliminary objections
that the reference, as made, is prima facie misconceived and
made mechanically without application of mind. The appropriate
government has failed to verify that the replying management has
been granted registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation
& Abolition) Act and the Management Nos. 2 and 3 have been
given licences under the said Act. The fact remains that the same
officers who are assigned with the powers to conduct conciliation
proceedings are ex-officio/appropriate authority/ government for
granting registration and licences under the Act. When the
registration and licenses have been allowed by the same
authority/government, there is no occasion whatsoever to make
reference for adjudication since all the three managements are
different and independent entities and there is no inter se privity
of contract. The appropriate authority/government has not
applied its mind and has made the reference mechanically. Hence,
the reference, as made, is liable to be rejected summarily.
17. The Management No. 1 further pleaded that Sir Ganga
Ram Hospital Employees' Union purporting to represent the
workers has no locus standi to take up the matter of the
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 8 out of 57
contractors' labour against the replying management since it is an
alien union and it has never been recognized by the Management
Nos. 2 and 3. On the basis of membership of the contract-labours,
as independently engaged by management Nos. 2 and 3, the
Union has no locus standi to represent the contract labours before
the replying management. Sir Ganga Ram Employees Union has
been acting in a most irresponsible manner by representing the
employees of Management Nos. 2 and 3, engaged in providing
essential and public utility services being rendered by the
Management No.1. As such, the Union has absolutely no right
whatsoever to invoke the provisions of Labour Laws, meant for
an amicable settlement and to maintain harmonious relations in
the establishments.
18. The Management No. 1 pleaded that the alleged Union is
not the recognized Union of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and is not
representing the workers/ employees of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
and, therefore, the Union has no locus standi to raise any
industrial dispute against Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as there is no
privity of contract existing between the workmen and the
Management No. 1.
19. The Management No. 1 further contended that the claim
statement is bad for mis- joinder of parties and the answering
Management has been impleaded unnecessarily whereas it has no
concern or connection with Management Nos 2 & 3 except that
an independent Agreement "Principal to Principal" has been
made which could never be subject to any litigation hence the
claim statement is liable to be dismissed summarily on this
ground alone. The answering Management has entered into an
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 9 out of 57
agreement with independent contractors i.e. Management Nos 2
and 3 and there has been no privity of contract between the
employees as engaged by the Management No. 2 & 3 hence the
claim statement as filed against the answering Management is
prima facie misconceived and devoid of justification and
jurisdiction.
20. It was contended that the answering Management is duly
registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act and Management No. 2 & 3 have got valid license under the
said Act and, as such the claim statement is liable to be
rejected /dismissed. That the names of the workers as appearing
in the alleged list are the workers of the Management no. 2 & 3
and not employees of Management No. 1, as such the claim of
the claimants is not maintainable against the management no.1.
21. It is also pleaded that the agreement with Management
No. 2 & 3 has been legally entered into for which the required
statutory permission as laid down under the Act has been
obtained and so long the same permission is in existence the
claim statement filed by the alleged union alleging to be
representing the employees of the Management No.1 is, thus,
false and not maintainable as no authority is vested in the
General Secretary, Shri Mangal Singh nor the union is
representing the workers of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in any
capacity nor the number of worker of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
requiring the representing capacity are the members of the
alleged union so the claim statement filed by the alleged union is
sham in nature and is not maintainable and, thus, be dismissed.
22. Further, the Management No. 2 & 3 are lawfully
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 10 out of 57
employed by the Management No.1 and they are lawfully
performing their duties at the premises of Management No.1 and
therefore, the alleged claim statement filed by the alleged union
represented by the so called alleged General Secretary Shri
Mangal Singh is, thus, not maintainable and be dismissed.
23. The Management No. 1 pleaded that the relationship of
Management No.1 towards Management No.2 & 3 is of principal
to principal and there is no other relationship amongst them and
the Management No. 2 & 3 are performing their duties as per the
agreement and therefore, the alleged claim statement is not
maintainable and is devoid of merits. The services of
Management No.2 & 3 are obtained for specific nature of work
which are not perennial in nature and even if the services so
obtained from Management No. 2 & 3 are to be of perennial in
nature even then there is no notification order or any direction
from the Govt. to prohibit the same and therefore, there is no
violation of any law, order or direction by Management No. 1 in
obtaining the lawful services of Management No. 2 & 3 and,
therefore, the alleged claim statement is not maintainable and be
dismissed as there is no industrial dispute raised in the alleged
claim statement.
24. On merits, the Management No. 1 stated that the services
of Management No. 2 & 3 are obtained for specific nature of
work which are not perennial in nature and even if the services so
obtained are to be perennial in nature even then there is no
notification order or any direction from the Government to
prohibit the same. The fact of employment of the workmen in the
establishment of the Management No. 1 through various
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 11 out of 57
contractors is admitted however it was stated that it is the
workmen's choice and the Management No. 1 has nothing to do
with it. It was further contended that even if it is assumed that
there is any justification in any of the allegation of the workmen
pertaining to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation
& Abolition) Act, the Industrial Tribunal is not an appropriate
forum to agitate the same. It is contended that the Management
No. 2 & 3 exercise supervision and control over the workmen
and not the Management No. 1. The Management No. 1 denied
that the contracts are sham and bogus or the Management No. 1
is indulged in unfair labour practices. The Management No. 1
prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed with heavy cost.
25. The Management No. 2 also filed reply to the
Statement of claim wherein it pleaded that the reference has
been made without any application of mind by the authorities in
as much it does not indicate the particulars of the employer as to
who are the employees of Management no. 2. A general list of
employees has been enclosed without indicating who belongs to
whom. Only some of the employees are employees of
Management no. 2 not all. The claim as stated in the statement of
claim is further bad for mis-joinder of parties since the answering
management is independent of any other party and is employing
its own work force to provide service under its own control and
supervision
26. The Management No. 2 pleaded that the Union is that of
the employees of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. It cannot enroll
employees other than those engaged by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
and therefore the union has no locus-standi to raise any industrial
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 12 out of 57
dispute on behalf and for employees of respondent no. 2. Each
contractor that is Management Nos. 2 and 3 are independent employers and have their own establishment. Further, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital's Employees Union have not espoused the cause of the employees of Management No. 2. Simply attaching a general list of employees working with various contractors including the answering respondent is not sufficient for the purpose of espousal. The union is therefore put to strict proof that it has been requisite espousal and thus competent to raise an industrial dispute.
27. The Management No. 2 also pleaded that the Management No. 1 holds a valid registration under contractor labour (R&A) Act and the Management No. 2 is contractor engaged in the business of man power supply and holds a valid license under the said Act. While doing so the Authority under the Contract Labour Act, ensures that the contractor is registered under the EPF and ESI Act and that there is a valid agreement between the Principal employer and the contractor. The agreement also provides that the employees engaged by the contractor are exclusively their employees and have no relationship with Management No. 1. Besides, the contractor shall comply with all the statutory obligations in respect of the workers and the principal employer shall have no liability whatsoever. On being satisfied the Authorities issue the license to the Contractor under the Contract Labour Act. Therefore the relationship of contractor Management No. 2 and the Management No. 1, the management is that of principal to principal. The referring Authority to this court and Authority I.D. No. 259/16 pages 13 out of 57 granting the registration and license under the Contract Labour Act is the same. On the one hand the Authority is issuing the license to the contractor and on the other hand referring the matter for adjudication. Therefore such a reference is bad in law and not maintainable.
28. On merits, the Management No. 2 stated that some of the workmen in Annexure A are its employees. They are on its rolls and appointed by Management No. 2. It maintains their attendance register and pays them wages and discharges all other legal obligations like EPF and ESI, bonus and leave etc. The contract of the Management No. 2 is a genuine one and not sham or camouflage or smoke screen. The Management No. 2 employs its own supervisor who has full control and supervision over its employees and there is no interference in day to day work by the principal employer. It is also contended that genuineness of the contract is established from the fact that the contract of appointment issued to the workers are not coterminous with the expiry of the contract and their services are transferable from one place to another wherever the Management No. 2 is employing its labour. It was prayed that the contract between the Management No. 1 & 2 be held as genuine and fair and the prayer of the claimants be dismissed.
29. The Management No. 3 also filed its reply to the statement of claim of the Union wherein it took preliminary objection that the alleged Union, namely Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Employees Union, has filed the present statement of claim against Management No. 3 assuming the employees of Management No. 3. to be the employees of Management No. 1 I.D. No. 259/16 pages 14 out of 57 which is itself without any basis. The purported Union has not submitted any documentary evidence before the Hon'ble Court to establish their allegation.
30. Further, the purported union has shown represented character and claims to be competent to represent its employees. The Management No. 3 submitted that the copy of espousal dated 15th May, 2010 submitted before the Hon'ble Court by them appears to be not a bonafide one. The Union has submitted a minutes of meeting. supported by a list of workers containing 352 signatures. As per information of Management No. 3 these workers are not the members of said union. The said union is not recognized by Management No. 1 or Management No. 3. Out of 352 signatories only 88 appear to be on the payroll of Management No. 3. In the event they do not constitute a substantial number of workmen to raise the industrial dispute. In addition to this, the purported union had submitted a list of signatories before the Conciliation Officer, which is altogether different. It appears that claimants' union has forged the signatures of workers. It is, therefore, submitted that the purported claimants union does not have any locus standi to raise any Industrial dispute on behalf of the workmen employed by Management No. 3.
31. It also contended that there does not exist an Industrial Dispute under section 2 (k) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 between the claimants and Management No. 3 because Management No. 3 has not violated any terms of conditions of employment for which an industrial dispute can be said to exist. The espousal submitted by the Union is not in accordance with I.D. No. 259/16 pages 15 out of 57 Law.
32. On merits, the Management No. 3 took the identical defense as taken by the Management No. 2 and stated that the workmen had been appointed by the Management No. 3 and are on the rolls of the Management No. 3. It maintains their attendance registers and pays them wages and discharges all other legal obligations like EPF and ESI, bonus and leave etc. The contract is a genuine one and not sham or camouflage. It has appointed its own supervisor who has full control and supervision over its employees. There is no interference in day to day work by the principal employer. It is also contended that genuineness of the contract is established from the fact that the contract of appointment issued to the workers are not coterminous with the expiry of the contract and their services are transferable from one place to another wherever the Management No. 3 is employing its labour. The Management No. 3 prayed for rejection of the statement of claim.
33. Separate rejoinders to the written statements have been filed by management no. 1 to management no. 3 by the workmen, wherein all objections raised in the preliminary objections have been denied by the workmen and reiterated and affirmed the contentions made in their statement of claim filed by them.
34. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.10.2013:-
(1) Whether Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Employees union has locus standi to raise the present dispute? OPW (2) Whether claim is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPM no. 1 I.D. No. 259/16 pages 16 out of 57 (3) Whether any notice of demand was served upon management no. 3, if not, its effect? OPW (4) As per terms of reference.
35. To prove their case, the workmen examined themselves as per descriptions given in the below table:
Sr. Examined as Name of the Documents relied upon No. workman by him/her
1. WW-1 Sh. Hardwari Lal He tendered his evidence S/o Late Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Dharmapal WW1/A in which he has
affirmed the contents of
his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex.
WW1/3 and Ex. WW1/6
to Ex. WW1/15.
2. WW-2 Sh. Manoj Kumar He tendered his evidence
S/o Sh. Jagdish by way of affidavit Ex.
Prasad WW2/A in which he has
affirmed the contents of
his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW2/1 to Ex.
WW2/10
3. WW-3 Sh. Om Prakash He tendered his evidence
S/o Sh. Mange by way of affidavit Ex.
Ram WW3/A in which he has
affirmed the contents of
his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW3/1 to Ex.
WW3/15
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 17 out of 57
4. WW-4 Sh. Anil Masand He tendered his evidence
S/o Sh. Megh Raj by way of affidavit Ex.
WW4/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW4/1 to Ex.
WW4/55. WW-5 Sh. Puran Chand He tendered his evidence S/o S. Mam by way of affidavit Ex.
Chand WW5/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW5/1 to Ex.
WW5/86. WW-6 Smt. Annapurna She tendered her W/o Late Sh. evidence by way of Ashok Kumar affidavit Ex. WW6/A in Singh which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW6/1 to Ex. WW6/107. WW-7 Smt. Savita W/o She tendered her Sh. Rajesh evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW7/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW7/1 to Ex. WW7/168. WW-8 Sh. Brijmohan He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Tej Singh by way of affidavit Ex.
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 18 out of 57
WW8/A in which he has
affirmed the contents of
his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW8/1 to x.
WW8/10
9. WW-9 Smt. Moti She tendered her
Guddan W/o Late evidence by way of
Sh. Sunil Verma affidavit Ex. WW9/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW9/1 to Ex. WW9/510. WW-10 Sh. Ravi Kumar He tendered his evidence Chandela S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Parmeshwar WW10/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW10/1 to Ex.
WW10/511. WW-11 Sh. Sandeep S/o He tendered his evidence Sh. Bishan by way of affidavit Ex.
WW11/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW11/1 to Ex.
WW11/5.
12. WW-12 Sh. Surnder He tendered his evidence Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Ramphal Singh WW12/A in which he has affirmed the contents I.D. No. 259/16 pages 19 out of 57 of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW12/1 to Ex.
WW12/313. WW-13 Sh. Daleep He tendered his evidence Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Mangal Das WW13/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW13/1 to Ex.
WW13/4
14. WW14 Smt. Sushma W/o She tendered her
Sh. Mukesh evidence by way of
Kumar affidavit Ex. WW14/A in
which she has affirmed
the contents of her
statement of claim. She
also relied upon certain
documents which are Ex.
WW14/1 to Ex. WW14/5
15. WW15 Sh. Santosh He tendered his evidence
Kumar Mishra by way of affidavit Ex.
S/o Sh. Harikant WW15/A in which he
Mishra has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW15/1 to Ex.
WW15/6
16. WW16 Sh. Jitender S/o He tendered his evidence
Late Sh. Prem by way of affidavit Ex.
Singh WW16/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon I.D. No. 259/16 pages 20 out of 57 certain documents which are Ex. WW16/1 to Ex.
WW16/517. WW17 Smt. Neetu W/o She tendered her Sh. Ashok Kumar evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW17/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW17/1 to Ex.
WW17/1118. WW-18 Smt. Prema She tendered her Kishore W/o Sh. evidence by way of Kamal Kishore affidavit Ex. WW18/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW18/1 to Ex. WW18/819. WW-19 Sh. Narender He tendered his evidence Singh S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Mehar Chand WW19/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW19/1 to Ex.
WW19/1120. WW-20 Sh. Bunty S/o Sh. He tendered his evidence Suresh by way of affidavit Ex.
WW20/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 21 out of 57
are Ex. WW20/1 to Ex.
WW20/13
21. WW-21 Sh. Satish Kumar He relied upon the S/o Sh. Rajpal documents already relied upon by WW-1
22. WW-22 Sh. Ajay Pandey He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Ram by way of affidavit Ex.
Suphal Pandey WW22/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW22/1 to Ex.
WW22/623. WW-23 Sh. Raj Kumar He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Karan by way of affidavit Ex.
Singh WW23/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW23/1 to Ex.
WW23/1124. WW-24 Smt. Kusum W/o She tendered her Sh. Mahesh evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW24/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW24/1 to Ex. WW24/225. WW-25 Smt. Rajkumari She did not tender her W/o Sh. Suresh affidavit in evidence. Kumar
26. WW-26 Smt. Pushpa She tendered her Kashyap W/o evidence by way of I.D. No. 259/16 pages 22 out of 57 Late Sh. Bal affidavit Ex. WW26/A in Kishan which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW26/1 to Ex.
WW26/11
27. WW-27 Sh. Suresh He tendered his evidence
Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Jagdish WW27/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW27/1 to Ex.
WW27/528. WW-28 Sh. Ashok Kumar He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Sunwari by way of affidavit Ex.
Lal WW28/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW28/1 to Ex.
WW28/1529. WW-29 Smt. Pushpa W/o She tendered her Sh. Prem Singh evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW29/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW29/1 to Ex.
WW29/1130. WW-30 Sh. Sriram S/o He tendered his evidence Kishan Lal by way of affidavit Ex.
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 23 out of 57 WW28/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW30/1 to Ex.
WW30/1331. WW-29 Smt. Geeta W/o She tendered her Sh. Anil Kumar evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW29/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW29/1 to Ex.
WW29/1032. WW-30 Sh. Rajender He tendered his evidence Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Vishnu Dutt WW30/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW30/1 to Ex.
WW30/733. WW-31 Smt. Bimla W/o She tendered her Sh. Raj Kumar evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW31/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW31/1 to Ex. WW31/634. WW-32 Sh. Ravi Kumar He tendered his evidence S/o Late Sh. Prem by way of affidavit Ex.
Singh WW32/A in which he
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 24 out of 57
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW32/1 to Ex.
WW32/10
35. WW-33 Sh. Ram Chander He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Vishnu by way of affidavit Ex.
Bahadur WW33/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW33/1 to Ex.
WW33/1936. WW-34 Sh. Samson N. He tendered his evidence Singh S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Nirmal Singh WW34/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW34/1 to Ex.
WW34/1637. WW-35 Sh. Amit Kumar He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Veerpal by way of affidavit Ex.
Singh WW35/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW35/1 to Ex.
WW35/3
38. WW-36 Sh. Madan He tendered his evidence
Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Gopal Sahu WW36/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 25 out of 57
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW36/1 To Ex.
WW36/8
39. WW-37 Sh. Vinod Kumar He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Suraj by way of affidavit Ex.
Paswarn WW37/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW37/1 to Ex.
WW37/2240. WW-38 Sh. Rahul Raja He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Bhagmal by way of affidavit Ex.
WW38/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW38/1 to Ex.
WW38/841. WW-39 Sh. Amit Sood He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Jaswant by way of affidavit Ex.
Singh Sood WW39/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW39/1 to Ex.
WW39/10
42. WW-40 Sh. Purshotam He tendered his evidence
Lal S/o Sh. Mala by way of affidavit Ex.
Ram WW40/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 26 out of 57
are Ex. WW40/1 to Ex.
WW40/4
43. WW-41 Sh. Sumit S/o Sh. He tendered his evidence Satpal Singh by way of affidavit Ex.
WW41/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW41/1 to Ex.
WW41/544. WW-42 Smt. Rekha W/o She tendered her Sh. Joginder evidence by way of Singh affidavit Ex. WW42/A in which she has affirmed the contents of her statement of claim. She also relied upon certain documents which are Ex.
WW42/1 to Ex. WW42/345. WW-43 Sh. Kuldeep He tendered his evidence Saini S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Laxmi Narain WW43/A in which he
Saini has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW43/1 to Ex.
WW43/4
46. WW-44 Smt. Malika W/o She tendered her
Sh. Anna evidence by way of
Chaluan affidavit Ex. WW44/A in
which she has affirmed
the contents of her
statement of claim. She
also relied upon certain
documents which are Ex.
WW44/1 to Ex. WW44/5
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 27 out of 57
47. WW-45 Sh. Virender He tendered his evidence
Kumar Shukla by way of affidavit Ex.
S/o Sh. Kunj WW45/A in which he
Bihari Shukla has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW45/1 to Ex.
WW45/11
48. WW-46 Sh. Avdhesh He tendered his evidence
Kumar @ by way of affidavit Ex.
Avdhesh Prasad WW46/A in which he
S/o Sh. Jai Singh has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW46/1 to Ex.
WW46/549. WW-47 Ms. Sarvesh W/o He tendered his evidence Sh. Vijay Kumar by way of affidavit Ex.
WW47/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW47/1 to Ex.
WW47/250. WW-48 Sh. Bhanu S/o He tendered his evidence Sh. Raj Kumar by way of affidavit Ex.
WW48/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW48/1.
51. WW-49 Sh. Ramesh He tendered his evidence Chander S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Ram Sahay WW49/A in which he
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 28 out of 57
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW49/1 to Ex.
WW49/2
52. WW-50 Sh. Rakesh He tendered his evidence
Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Ram Chander WW50/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW50/1 (OSR)
53. WW-51 Sh. Rajesh He tendered his evidence
Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Raj Pal Singh WW51/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW51/1 (OSR)
54. WW-52 Sh. Rajesh He tendered his evidence
Chaudhary S/o by way of affidavit Ex.
Sh. Muni Lal WW52/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW52/1 (OSR)
55. WW-53 Sh. Rahul S/o Sh. He tendered his evidence Mohan Lal by way of affidavit Ex.
WW53/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW53/1 (OSR)
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 29 out of 57
56. WW-54 Sh. Ashok S/o He tendered his evidence Sh. Kanhiya Lal by way of affidavit Ex.
WW54/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW54/1 (OSR)
57. WW-55 Sh. Naveen S/o He tendered his evidence Sh. Gyan Chand by way of affidavit Ex.
WW55/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW55/1 (OSR)
58. WW-56 Sh. Vikas He tendered his evidence Chandra S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Ram Lal WW56/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW56/1 (OSR)
59. WW-57 Sh. Bali Ram S/o He tendered his evidence Sh. Lal Mani by way of affidavit Ex.
WW57/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW57/1 (OSR)
60. WW-58 Sh. Vinod Kumar He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Fakir by way of affidavit Ex.
Chand WW58/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 30 out of 57
certain documents which
are Ex. WW58/1 (OSR)
61. WW-59 Sh. Nand Ram He tendered his evidence S/o Sh. Bhoj Raj by way of affidavit Ex.
WW59/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW59/1 (OSR)
62. WW-60 Sh. Pushkar He tendered his evidence Singh S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Mohan Singh WW60/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW60/1 (OSR)
63. WW-61 Sh. Harsh S/o Sh. He tendered his evidence Mahender by way of affidavit Ex.
WW61/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW61/1 (OSR)
64. WW-62 Sh. Sumit Kumar He tendered his evidence Gupta S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Birendra Prasad WW62/A in which he
Gupta has affirmed the contents
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Ex. WW62/1 (OSR)
65. WW-63 Sh. Rakesh He tendered his evidence
Kumar S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex.
Ganga Sharan WW63/A in which he
has affirmed the contents
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 31 out of 57
of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon
certain documents which
are Mark 63/A
66. WW-64 Sh. Dinesh S/o He tendered his evidence
Sh. Inderpal by way of affidavit Ex.
WW64/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Ex. WW64/1 (OSR)
67. WW-65 Sh. Deepak He tendered his evidence Mewati S/o Sh. by way of affidavit Ex. Niranjan Singh WW65/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his statement of claim.
He also relied upon certain documents which are Mark A (colly).
36. Thereafter, vide separate statement, the Ld. AR for the workmen closed workmen evidence on 06.05.2022.
37. To substantiate and prove their case, management in their evidence examined sh. H.S. Bhalla, Manager (Legal) of management no. 1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A in which he has affirmed the contents of the written statement. Management also examined Sh. Pawan Kumar from Labour Department as MW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW2/A in which he has affirmed the contents of his affidavit. Both managements were cross-examined and Management evidence was closed vide order dated 19.05.2023.
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 32 out of 57 Thereafter, vide order dated 27.03.2023 management no. 2 and management no. 3, both were proceeded ex-parte.
38. Perusal of file further reveals that a separate no relief award dated 30.05.2018 was passed by my ld. Predecessor in respect of workman Naveen Sagar S/o Sh. Jagmal Singh, as mentioned at Sr. No. 306 in the list of workmen annexed as Annexure-A. An application was moved on behalf of workman Naveen Sagar for deletion of his name from the array of workman in the instant reference as he did not wish to pursue the present statement of claim. Separate statement of workman Sh. Naveen Sagar S/o Sh. Jagwal Singh was recorded and thereafter, vide separate order dated 30.05.2018, no relief award was passed against him.
39. Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by counsel for both the parties.
40. Ld. AR for the workmen argued that the Ld. AR for workmen argued that the contracts between the Management No.1 and contractors including the Management No.2 & 3 are sham, bogus and a smoke screen. The work is of regular and perennial nature and regular workforce has been employed by Management No.1 to perform the same jobs. The workmen have been working under complete control and supervision of the Management No.1. Ld. AR for workmen argued that the Management No. 1 is the actual employer of the workmen and it is a proper and necessary party to the dispute as all the reliefs are claimed against the Management No. 1. The Management No. 1 has engaged in unfair labour practices by continuing the I.D. No. 259/16 pages 33 out of 57 workmen as contractual employees for years with an object to deny them salary and status of permanent workers. Therefore, the workmen are entitled for absorption into the employment of the Management No. 1 as permanent employees.
41. Ld. AR for the management No.1 has argued that the contracts have been entered into principal to principal basis with contractors i.e. Management Nos. 2 & 3 and therefore, the Management No. 1 cannot be made a party to the dispute. It has been further argued that there is no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act had been issued by the appropriate government for abolishment of contract labour in the Management No. 1. Ld. AR for the Management No. 1 further argued that the claim is bad for misjoinder of parties as the Management No. 1 is neither a proper nor a necessary party. The agreement executed between the Management No. 1,2, & 3 was/is a genuine and not sham and camouflage. The Management No. 1 is having valid Registration Certificate issued by the Labour Department. The Management No. 2 & 3 are having valid licenses to work in the premises of the Management No. 1 as per the agreement entered into between them. There is no direct control over the workers of the contractor by the Management No. 1. The workmen are working under direct control of the contractors. The workmen are not entitled to be absorbed by the Management No. 1.
42. I have gone through the entire records of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents proved during evidence. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the parties.
I.D. No. 259/16 pages 34 out of 57
43. My issue wise findings are:-
Issue No. 1:-
(1) Whether Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Employees union has locus standi to raise the present dispute? OPW
44. The Management No. 1 in its written statement has contended that the Union purporting to take up the cause of the contract workers the Union is not a recognized union of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and there is no privity of contract existing between the workmen and the Management No. 1. The Management No. 2 has contended that the Union is of the employees of the Management No. 1 and hence it cannot raise the industrial dispute for the workers of the contractors. Whereas the Union has claimed that it is duly recognized by the Management No. 1 and the Management No. 1 has provided space for its activities. In support of its contentions, the Union examined one Sh. Ramesh Chander Yadav, the General Secretary of the Union. He deposed that the Union is a registered union under the Trade Union Act and is the only union of the workmen operating in the establishment of the Management.
42. Ld. AR for the workmen argued that even though the industrial dispute raised is for the contractors' workers, there is a real and substantial dispute between the Union and the Management. In this regard he relied upon the judgments in Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958) I LLJ 500 SC. Ld. AR for the Management No. 1 argued that there is no privity of contract between the claimants and I.D. No. 259/16 pages 35 out of 57 the Management No. 1, the Union is not recognized and an alien Union and hence the Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute.He further argued that the Management No.1 does not have any union of its employees and for improving conditions of its employees, the Management No.1 has set up Staff Welfare Board.
43. On behalf of the Union, its General Secretary has placed on record and proved the demand letter sent on its letterhead to the Managements. The address on the letterhead is "Office in- Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060". He has also placed on record and proved resolution espousing the cause of the workmen.
44. Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Standard-vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. vs Its Workmen & Ors AIR 1960 SC 948 while deciding the issue as to whether the Union of direct workmen can raise an industrial dispute for contractors' workers held that,
6. The contention under this head is that there is no dispute between the company and the respondents and that it was not open to the respondents to raise a dispute with respect to the workmen of some other employer (in this case, Ramji Gordhan and Company). Reliance in this connection was placed on the definition of "industrial dispute" in s. 2(k) of the Act and the judgment of this Court in Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958)ILLJ500SC The definition of "industrial dispute" in s. 2(k) requires three things -
(i) There should be a dispute or difference;
(ii) The dispute or difference should be between I.D. No. 259/16 pages 36 out of 57 employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen;
(iii) The dispute or difference must be connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.
7. The first part thus refers to the factum of a real and substantial dispute, the second part to the parties to the dispute and the third to the subject-matter of the dispute. The contention of the learned Solicitor- General is two-fold in this connection, namely, (i) that there is no real or substantial dispute between the company and the respondents, and (ii) that the subject-matter of the dispute is such that it cannot come within the terms of the definition in s. 2(k). 8 . The first submission can be disposed of shortly. There is undoubtedly a real and substantial dispute between the company and the respondents on the question of the employment of contract-labour for the work of the company. The fact that the respondents who have raised this dispute are not employed on contract basis will not make the dispute any the less a real or substantial dispute between them and the company as to the manner in which the work of the company should be carried on. The dispute in this case is that the company should employ workmen directly and not through contractors in carrying on its work and this dispute is undoubtedly real and substantial even though the regular workmen (i.e., the respondents) who have raised it are not employed on contract labour. In Dimakuchi case (1958)ILL J500SC to which reference has been made, the dispute was relating to an employee of the tea estate who was not a workman. It was nevertheless held that this was a real and substantial dispute between the workmen and the company. How the work should be carried on is certainly a matter of some importance to the workmen and in the circumstances it cannot be said that this is not a real and substantial dispute between I.D. No. 259/16 pages 37 out of 57 the company and its workmen. Thus out of the three ingredients of s. 2(k) the first is satisfied; the second also is satisfied because the dispute is between the company and the respondents; it is the third ingredient which really calls for determination in the light of the decision in Dimakuchi case (1958)ILLJ500SC.
9. Section 2(k), as it is worded, would allow workmen of a particular employer to raise a dispute connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. It was this aspect of the matter which was considered in Dimakuchi case (1958)ILL J500SC and it was held that the words "any person" used in s. 2(k) would not justify the workmen of a particular employer to raise a dispute about any one in the world, though the words "any person" in that provision may not be equated with the words "any workman". The test therefore to be applied in determining the scope of the words "any person" in s. 2(k) was stated in the following words at pp. 1174- 75 :-
"If, therefore, the dispute is a collective dispute, the party raising the dispute must have either a direct interest in the subject-matter of dispute or a substantial interest therein in the sense that the class to which the aggrieved party belongs is substantially affected thereby. It is the community of interest of the class as a whole-class of employers or class of workmen - which furnishes the real nexus between the dispute and the parties to the dispute. We see no insuperable difficulty in the practical application of this test. In a case where the party to a dispute is composed of aggrieved workmen themselves and the subject-matter of the dispute relates to them or any of them, they clearly have a direct interest in the dispute. Where, however, the party to the dispute also composed of workmen espouse the cause of another person whose employment or non-employment, etc., may prejudicially affect their interest, the workmen I.D. No. 259/16 pages 38 out of 57 have a substantial interest in the subject-matter of dispute. In both such cases the dispute is an industrial dispute."
10. We have therefore to see whether the respondents who have raised this dispute have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the dispute or a substantial interest therein in the sense that the class to which the respondents belong is substantially affected thereby and whether there is community of interest between the respondents and those whose cause they have espoused. There can be no doubt that there is community of interest in this case between the respondents and the workmen of Ramji Gordhan and Company. They belong to the same class and they do the work of the same employer and it is possible for the company to give the relief which the respondents are claiming. The respondents have in our opinion also a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the dispute, namely, the abolition of the contract system in doing work of this kind. The learned Solicitor- General particularly emphasised that there was no question of the interest of the respondents being prejudicially affected by the employment or non- employment or the terms of service or conditions of labour of the workmen of Ramji Gordhan and Company and placed reliance on the words "may prejudicially affect their interest" appearing in the observations quoted above. We may, however, mention that the test laid down is that the workmen espousing the cause should have a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the dispute, and it was only when illustration the practical application of the test that this Court used the words "may prejudicially affect their interest". Besides it is contended by Mr. Gokhale for the respondents that even if prejudicial effect on the interest of the workmen espousing the cause is necessary, this is a case where the respondents' interest may be prejudicially affected in future in case the contract system of work is allowed to prevail in this branch of the work of the company. He submits that if the company can carry on this part of the work I.D. No. 259/16 pages 39 out of 57 by contract system it may introduce the same system in other branches of its work which are now being done by its regular workmen. We do not think it necessary to go into this aspect of the matter as we have already indicated that prejudicial effect is only one of the illustrations of the practical application of the test laid down in Dimakuchi case ((1958) S.C.R. 1156), viz., substantial interest in the sense that the class to which the aggrieved party belongs is substantially affected thereby. It seems to us therefore that the respondents have a community of interest with the workmen of Ramji Gordhan and Company who are in effect working for the same employer. They have also a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the dispute in the sense that the class to which they belong (namely, workmen) is substantially affected thereby. Finally the company can give relief in the matter. We are therefore of opinion that all the ingredients of s. 2(k) as interpreted in Dimakuchi case (1958)ILL J500SC are present in this case and the dispute between the parties is an industrial dispute and the reference was competent.
45. In The Standard-vacuum (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the regular workers have a direct and substantial interest in the industrial dispute for abolition of contract labour and they can espouse the cause of the contractors' workers.
46. So far as the claim of the Management No. 1 that the Union is not a recognized union, it is a settled law that even a minority or non-recognized union can raise an industrial dispute. Even a union of another establishment belonging to the same industry may take up the cause of workers if that union is sufficiently representative of the workmen of the establishment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.H. Jadhav vs Forbes Gokak Ltd AIR 2005 SC 998 has held that, I.D. No. 259/16 pages 40 out of 57 "The definition of "Industrial Dispute" in Section 2(k) of the Act shows that an Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between an employer and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment or with the condition of labour, of any person. The definition has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court and the law is well settled. The locus classicus is the decision in Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) v. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), (1965)ILLJ668SC where it was held that for the purposes of Section 2 (k) it must be shown that (1) the dispute is connected with the employment or non employment of a workman. (2) the dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen. The phrase "the union"
merely indicates the Union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a minority of the workmen, (3) the establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had joined the Union of another establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that Union to take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, despite the fact that such Union was not exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned. An illustration of what had been anticipated in Dharam Pal's case is to be found in the Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Management of Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd., where an 'outside' union was held to be sufficiently representative to espouse the cause."
47. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Employees' Union is a union of direct employees as well as of the contractors' employees. Members of the Union have a community of interest as they perform the same kind of work in the same establishment for the benefit of, in effect, the same employer. The Union consisting of direct and contractors' I.D. No. 259/16 pages 41 out of 57 workers has a direct and substantial interest in the improvement of condition of labour of one particular class of its members and hence it has locus standi to raise the present dispute even if it is not a recognized union of the Management. Accordingly, I decide the issue no. 1 in favour of the workmen and against the Managements that the Union has locus to raise the present dispute.
Issue No. 2:-
(2) Whether claim is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPM no. 1
47. The Management No. 1 contended that the contracts have been entered into principal to principal basis with contractors i.e. Management Nos. 2 & 3 and therefore, the Management No. 1 cannot be made a party to the dispute. Ld. AR for the Management No. 1 argued that the claim is bad for misjoinder of parties as the Management No. 1 is neither a proper nor a necessary party. On the other hand, Ld. AR for workmen argued that the Management No. 1 is the actual employer of the workmen and it is a proper and necessary party to the dispute as all the reliefs are claimed against the Management No. 1.
48. The terms of reference of the present industrial dispute is about adjudicating the legal status of the workmen being represented by the Union as to whether there exists employer-
employee relationship between the workmen and the Management No. 1. It is the stand of the Management No.1 that it is the principal employer in terms of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The Union is claiming that the contracts entered into between the Management No.1 and contractors are sham and bogus I.D. No. 259/16 pages 42 out of 57 and so called contract employees are the direct employees of the Management No. 1. The Union is claiming regularization of services of the workmen in the establishment of the Management No. 1. Therefore, the Management No. 1 is a proper and necessary party. Accordingly, I decide this issue in favour of the workmen and against the Managements.
Issue No. 3:-
(3) Whether any notice of demand was served upon management no. 3, if not, its effect? OPW
49. WW-49, Sh. Ramesh Chander Yadav has proved the legal demand notice sent by the Union and postal receipts which shows that the demand notice was served upon the Management No. 3. The Management No. 3 did not appear to contradict the statement of the WW 49, nor led its evidence to disprove the same.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the workmen and against the Management No. 3.
Issue No. 4:-
(4) As per terms of reference.
50. It is the claim of the Union that the contracts entered into between the Management No. 1 and the contractors are sham, bogus, and merely a smoke-screen to deny the employment benefits to the workmen. The Union has contended that the workmen have been employed against the regular, perennial and permanent nature of jobs. The workmen are in continuous employment from their initial appointments. The Management No.1 has changed various contractors while workmen remained the same. The Management I.D. No. 259/16 pages 43 out of 57 No. 1 has appointed a number of persons as their direct employees as Ward Boy, House Lady, Safai Karmchari, Mali, Ward Girl, Lift Operator, Pantry Boy, House Boy, Bearer; whereas the workmen performing the same job are kept as contractors' employees. Direct employees are paid salary in a pay scale with other benefits whereas the workmen are being paid only the minimum wages. The workmen are an integral part of the establishment of the Management No. 1. In day to day working the workmen are working under direct supervision and control of the Management No. 1 and its officers. The workmen are directly supervised by the officers of the Management No. 1. The attendance registers of the workmen are maintained by Management No. 1. Some of the workmen were earlier working as direct employees of the Management No. 1 and subsequently they were transferred on the rolls of the contractors without any consent. Based upon this, it is claimed that the contracts between the Management No. 1 and various contractors are sham and bogus and the workmen are direct employees of the Management No. 1.
51. The Union examined many workmen as witnesses. Though, they placed on record attendance records being maintained by the Management No. 1, records pertaining to initial employment as direct employees of the Management No. 1, EPF records, documents pertaining to their later engagement through contractors and that they were interviewed by the officers of the Management No.1 at the time of their recruitment, but no evidence is available. Names of the officers have also been mentioned in the affidavit, but they were not produced. They deposed that the Management No. 1 I.D. No. 259/16 pages 44 out of 57 maintains placement register regarding the posting of the workmen in the wards and departments. The workmen deposed that the contractor had nothing to do with their recruitment, supervision or control. Every aspect of their work was supervised and controlled by the officers of the Management No.1, but by whom is not proved. It is the claim of the Union that the contracts entered into between the Management No. 1 and the contractors are sham, bogus, and merely a smoke-screen to deny the employment benefits to the workmen, but if it was so then, it should have been challenged. Rather, it is admission that they were employee of contractor. . The Union has contended that the workmen have been employed against the regular, perennial and permanent nature of jobs. The workmen are in continuous employment from their initial appointments. The Management No.1 has changed various contractors while workmen remained the same. The Management No. 1 has appointed a number of persons as their direct employees as Ward Boy, House Lady, Safai Karamchari, Mali, Ward Girl, Lift Operator, Pantry Boy, House Boy, Bearer; whereas the workmen performing the same job are kept as contractors' employees. It has come on record that direct employees are paid salary in a pay scale with other benefits whereas the workmen are being paid only the minimum wages. It is argued that the attendance registers of the workmen are maintained by Management No. 1, but that is only for duty roaster purposes. Some of the workmen were earlier working as direct employees of the Management No. 1 and subsequently they were transferred on the rolls of the contractors without any consent. This is also not proved because management no. 1 has brought on record that these persons were casual labourer and they I.D. No. 259/16 pages 45 out of 57 joined contractor.
52. It is argued that if they face any problems at the workplace, the same is sorted by the officers of the Management No. 1 and contractors are not involved in the same, but it does not create any right in favour of workmen because streamlining of workplace is duty of management no. 1.
53. The Management No. 1 rightly opposed the claim and contended that it has valid registration under the CLRA Act and the contractors have valid licenses. The workmen are employees of the Management No. 2 & 3 and not of the Management No. 1. The contract has been legally entered into and Management Nos 2& 3 are lawfully employed and lawfully performing their duties. The services of the contractors are obtained for specific nature of work which are not perennial in nature and even otherwise there is no notification regarding prohibiting the same. The contractors i.e. Management Nos. 2 & 3 have the right to hire and fire and also pay wages, supervise their work and maintain their records. So far as contractor being changed while workmen being same is concerned, it is claimed that it is workmen's choice and the Management No. 1 has nothing to do with it.
54. The Management Witness MW1 relied upon contracts entered into between the Management No. 1 with Management Nos. 2 & 3 and registration certificate under CLRA Act. During cross examination, initially he denied the fact of the workman Hardwari Lal being a direct employee of the Management No. 1. He denied Hardwari Lal being paid directly recruited by the Management No. I.D. No. 259/16 pages 46 out of 57 1 or the officers of the Management No. 1 conducted the interview of Hardwari Lal. But he admitted the genuineness of the documents Ex MW1/W1 identity card, Ex MW1/W2 and MW1/W3 EPF Contribution slips, Ex MW1/W4 and Ex MW1/W5 entry cards. These documents show that workman Hardwari Lal was a direct employee of the Management No. 1 initially and the Management Witness MW1 resorted to falsehood in denying the direct employment of Sh. Hardwari Lal. He proved that the Management No. 1 maintains a placement register regarding posting/presence of the workmen in the departments. Though he clarified that it is only with respect to direct employees of the Management, but refused to place the same on record of the tribunal. He proved that many daily wagers including workman Hardwari Lal were appointed by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and were working under the exclusive control and supervision of its officials. He proved that the job of ward boy is continuing from the beginning of the hospital. He denied a suggestion that workmen whose names are mentioned in Annexure A at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 29, 30, 32, 62, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 134, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 178, 211, 212, 214, 216, & 235 joined directly with the Management No. 1. But he clarified that the Management No. 1 recruited workmen on direct basis between 2002 to 2005 as daily wager for short period and thereafter it is possible that they might have joined the contractors on their own will and volition and it is also possible that those persons are now working with the Management No. 1 under contractors. There are about 1100-1200 workmen who are treated as contract labour and about 3000 workers are directly employed. To a question put regarding the I.D. No. 259/16 pages 47 out of 57 commission of the contractor, he replied that the contractors are paid their service charges as per the contract entered with them. He proved that the workers are working through the contractors with the Management No. 1 from the year 2002 to subsequent years to till date and many are still working with the management. He proved that the new contractor provides the name of the workmen as per the contract. He also proved that new contract takes into effect from the next day when the previous contract expires. He denied that the nature of work of contract labour and direct labour is the same. He clarified that the direct workers are more educated, well conversant with the nature of duty, skilled and they are recruited through proper scrutiny before the board.
55. The Management No. 2 & 3 neither appeared to cross examine the witnesses of Union or the Management No. 1, nor they led any evidence of their own.
56. The workmen have not been working under complete control and supervision of the Management No.1, but they were working as per the work assigned to them. The Management No. 1 has not been engaged in unfair labour practices by continuing the workmen as contractual employees for years It is argued by the workman that the workmen are entitled for absorption into the employment of the Management No. 1 as permanent employees. In support of his contentions he relied upon following judgments:-
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3527
2. The Management of Ashok Hotel vs Their Workmen (W.P. (C) 14828/2006, decision dated I.D. No. 259/16 pages 48 out of 57 19.02.2013).
3. Gujrat Electricity Board Thermal Power Station, UKAI v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 1893.
4. Chief Engineer Thermal Power Station, GEB v.
Workmen and Ors., Special Civil Application 16912 of 2005, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
5. Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sehkari S. Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Sharma (Dead) by LRs & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 3546.
57. Ld. AR for the Management No.1 argued that no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act had been issued by the appropriate government for abolishment of contract labour in the Management No. 1. The agreement executed between the Management No. 1, 2, & 3 was/is a genuine and not sham and camouflage. The Management No. 1 is having valid Registration Certificate issued by the Labour Department. The Management No. 2 & 3 are having valid licenses to work in the premises of the Management No. 1 as per the agreement entered into between them. There is no direct control over the workers of the contractor by the Management No. 1. The workmen are working under direct control of the contractors. The workmen are not entitled to be absorbed by the Management No. 1. In support of his arguments he relied upon:-
1. Sona Devi vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & Anr (CWP 19123/2015 Dt. 20.02.2023, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
2. Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs Ramcharan & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 8446-8447 of 2002 dated 05.12.2022
3. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs Mahendra Prasad I.D. No. 259/16 pages 49 out of 57 Jokhmola
58. The terms of reference contains two parts; first regarding employer-employee relationship between the workmen and the Management No. 1, and if so the second regarding demand for regularization of these workers on the posts in proper pay scale against the Management No. 1. The present matter pertains to triangular employment arrangement wherein the principal employer i.e. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital has entered into contracts with certain contractors to provide workers. The Union contends that the contractual arrangement is sham and bogus and the so called contract workers are direct employees of the Management No. 1, whereas the Managements resist the same.
59. A constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. (supra) has held that,
105. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes;(i) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be sham and nominal rather a camouflage in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer was held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and I.D. No. 259/16 pages 50 out of 57 declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited;
(iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of a contractor and the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
60. The issue involved in SAIL (Supra) was regarding automatic absorption of contract labour in the event the appropriate government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated an instance wherein the contract was found to be sham and camouflage. In Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai vs Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld an award wherein the contract between the principal employer and the contractor was found to be sham and nominal. However, it was partially overruled. The correct position has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in International Airport Authority of India vs International Air Cargo Workers' Union & Ors AIR 2009 SC 3063, which reads as under, "17. In Gujarat Electricity Board, this Court held:
...the exclusive authority to decide whether the contract labour should be abolished or not is that of the appropriate Government under the said provision. It is further not disputed before us that the decision of the Government is final subject, of course, to the judicial review on the usual grounds. However, as stated earlier, the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act arises only where the labour contract is genuine and the question whether the contract is genuine, or not can be examined and adjudicated upon by the court or the industrial adjudicator, as the case may be. Hence I.D. No. 259/16 pages 51 out of 57 in such cases, the workmen can make a grievance that there is no genuine contract and that they are in fact the employees of the principal employer. If the contract is sham or not genuine, the workmen of the so called contractor can raise an industrial dispute for declaring that they were always the employees of the principal employer and for claiming the appropriate service conditions. When such dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for abolition of the labour contract and hence the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will not bar either the raising or the adjudication of the dispute. When such dispute is raised, the industrial adjudicator has to decide whether the contract is sham or genuine. It is only if the adjudicator comes to the conclusion that the contract is sham, that he will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. If, however, he comes to the conclusion that the contract is genuine, he may refer the workmen to the appropriate Government for abolition of the contract labour under Section 10 of the Act and keep the dispute pending. However, he can do so if the dispute is espoused by the direct workmen of the principal employer. If the workmen of the principal employer have not espoused the dispute, the adjudicator, after coming to the conclusion that the contract is genuine, has to reject the reference, the dispute being not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the ID Act. He will not be competent to give any relief to the workmen of the erstwhile contractor even if the labour contract is abolished by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act.
In view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, it is only the appropriate government which has the authority to abolish genuine labour contract in accordance with the provisions of the said section. No court including industrial adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so.
1 8 . Gujarat Electricity Board was partly overruled in Air India in regard to the question whether on abolition of contract labour system, the contract I.D. No. 259/16 pages 52 out of 57 labour have to be automatically absorbed by the principal employer, this Court held as follows in Air India: The moment the contract labour system stands prohibited under Section 10(1), the embargo to continue as a contract labour is put an end direct relationship has been provided between the workmen and the principal employer. Thereby, the principal employer directly becomes responsible for taking the services of the workmen hitherto regulated through the contractor. The linkage between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between the principal employer and the contract labour as its employees. Considered from this perspective, all the workmen in the respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of the employer. 1 9 . A course correction, if we may use that expression, was applied by the Constitution Bench, in SAIL. This Court made it clear that neither Section 10 nor any other provision in CLRA Act provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act and consequently the principal employer cannot be required to absorb the contract labour working in the establishment. This Court further held that on a prohibition notification being issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work, if an industrial dispute is raised by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract, or as a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of statutory benefits. If the contract is found to be sham or nominal and merely a camouflage, then the so called contract labour will have to be treated as direct I.D. No. 259/16 pages 53 out of 57 employees of the principal employer and the industrial adjudicator should direct the principle employer to regularize their services in the establishment subject to such conditions as it may specify for that purpose.
On the other hand if the contract is found to be genuine and at the same time there is a prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act, in respect of the establishment, the principal employer intending to employ regular workmen for the process, operation or other work of the establishment in regard to which the prohibition notification has been issued, it shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour if otherwise found suitable, if necessary by giving relaxation of age.
As noticed above, SAIL did not specifically deal with the legal position as to when a dispute is brought before the Industrial Adjudicator as to whether the contract labour agreement is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, when there is no prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.
20. But where there is no abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of CLRA Act, but the contract labour contend that the contract between principal employer and contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is purely under the ID Act. The principles in Gujarat Electricity Board continue to govern the issue. The remedy of the workmen is to approach the industrial adjudicator for an adjudication of their dispute that they are the direct employees of the principal employer and the agreement is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, even when there is no order under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act. The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that contract between principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like: who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who can tell the employee the way in which the I.D. No. 259/16 pages 54 out of 57 work should be done, in short who has direction and control over the employee. But where there is no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication that the contract was sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing the principal employer to absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise. The tests that are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."
61. From the above precedents, the legal position emerges that even in cases where there is no abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, the industrial court can look into the arrangement as to whether the contract between the principal employer and contractor is sham and bogus. The industrial I.D. No. 259/16 pages 55 out of 57 court can grant relief if it arrives at a conclusion that the contract was sham and camouflage to deny the employment benefits. The same principles were reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs Ramcharan & Ors (supra) and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in The Management of Ashok Hotel vs Their Workmen (supra).
62. To arrive at a finding of sham and bogus contract, the industrial tribunal can apply tests like: who pays the salary, who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action, who can tell the employees the way in which the work is to be done. It is vital to be noted that the tests which are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether contract labour agreement is sham and bogus.
63. In the present case, it has not come on record that management no. 1 was directly paying the wages to the workmen or the management no. 1 was exercising any direct control and supervision over the workmen. Further, there is no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act prohibiting or Abolishing the contract labour in the management no. 1 by the appropriate government. Nothing has been brought on record that the agreement is sham and bogus. The workman continued to work for number of years under different contractors. PF was not paid by management no. 1. The PF has also been stated to be withdrawn by some workman. No hue and cry was made by workmen earlier, therefore, I am of the view that there is no employer employee relationship between the workmen as given in Annexure A and the management I.D. No. 259/16 pages 56 out of 57 no. 1. Thus, other demand for regularization of the workmen on the posts in proper pay scale against the Management No. 1 does not hold water.
Relief:-
64. In view of the above discussions, there existed no employer and employee relationship between the Management No. 1 and the workmen. Thus, the workmen as per Annexure A, who are being shown as employed through the contractors are not entitled for any relief as claimed. Reference stands dismissed.
65. A copy of this award be sent to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Tribunal on this 01.07.2023 (Ajay Goel) POIT-I/RADC New Delhi I.D. No. 259/16 pages 57 out of 57