Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Industrial   Dispute     Act.     On   merits,   it   has   been   submitted   by   the management   that   claimant   was   never   selected   by     IGNCA,   hence question of claimant having allegedly working for respondent does not arise.  From the documents placed on record by the workman himself, it is clear that claimant was engaged on temporary basis by the Building Project Committee (in short BPC),  which in itself was a temporary body constituted only for the specific temporary project under a plan scheme relating to the construction of the building of   IGNCA.   The said BPC was thereafter ceased to be inexistence due to the lack of the work and funds  as  the  work  was transferred to CPWD.   No specific rules and regulations were ever framed for the recruitment of the employees of BPC.   However   said   BPC   used   to   requisition   the   staff   for   temporary works   from   the   Employment   Exchange   and   on   each   and   every occasion,   when   such   requisition   were   sent   to   the   Employment Exchange, the department used to clearly indicate in writing that the concerned post/works were temporary in nature and all the candidates used to apply for the said temporary posts knowing fully well that the posts and works were temporary in nature.   As far as the recruitment process in   IGNCA is concerned, it is submitted that there has been specific rules and regulations for conducting the recruitment process of the   employees   on   regular   basis   and   that   no   recruitment   could   have been   done   without   advertising   the   vacancies   for   conducting   the recruitment process for the regular employees. In the present case, no advertisement   was   given   for   general   public   for   conducting   any recruitment   process   on   regular   basis   and   on   the   contrary   from   the documents sent to Employment Exchange, it is clear that names of the persons   were   requisitioned   for   temporary   post   only   by   and   for   BPC only. The construction of the building project came to halt because of lack of allocation of funds. The construction work of the  IGNCA building was thereafter given to CPWD. It has been submitted on behalf of the management that the claimant was never engaged as regular candidate in  IGNCA,  hence he is not entitled for ACP scheme which is available for regular employees of   IGNCA. The claimant was given promotion pursuant to the fact that he qualified test,  which was held in the terms of the letter dt 07/03/1996 and said letter does not show that claimant was appointed in   IGNCA. With these grounds, it has been prayed by the management that the claim of the workman be dismissed. 

7)   From the side of management,   MW1 Sh Bijender has tendered his   affidavit   as   Ex.MW1/A   and   has   relied   upon   the   documents   from Ex.MW1/1   to   Ex.MW1/6.   He   has   also   relied   upon   the   documents Ex.WW1/M­1 to  Ex.WW1/M4.
8)    I have heard arguments from Ld. AR for the parties.
9)   On   behalf   of   the   workman,   Sh   Abhinav   Kumar,   Ld   AR   for   the workman has argued the matter.   It was submitted by Ld A.R for the workman that facts mentioned by the workman in his claim,   has not been specifically denied by the management. The only objection taken by the management is that workman    was not the employee of Indira Gandhi  National  Centre  of Arts (herein after  referred as IGNCA)  but was   admittedly   the   temporary   employee   of   the   Building   Project Committee (in short BPC). Ld AR for the  workman has submitted that the   document   Ex.WW1/2   is  the  transfer   order   of  the    workman,     by which he has been taken to Administration Pool and even in the cross examination,   Management Witness has admitted that   workman was appointed as Stenographer Grade­D since 1996, therefore the workman is entitled to the relief of ACP claimed by him. 
16) Management has contested the claim of the workman mainly on two grounds;  firstly  that workman is not the employee of IGNCA but was the employee of the BPC; secondly the workman was temporary employee as the BPC itself was temporarily constituted,   only for the construction of the building,  which could not be completed by the BPC, therefore, the workman has no right to claim ACP,  as he was never the regular employee of IGNCA. The claim of the workman is that BPC was a part of IGNCA. The workman was appointed in the year 1991 as LDC.

18) After considering the contentions of the management, claim of the workman and the documents placed on record, I am of the opinion that management   is   not   clear   about   their   position.   On   one   hand, management has denied that workman was ever promoted or posted as Stenographer   Grade­D   but   simultaneously,   they     have   admitted   that post,   against   which   he   was   posted,     was   temporary   post,     as   per advertisement.   Contrary   to   this,   MW­1   Shri   Bijender   has   admitted   in cross   examination   dt   19/11/14   that   workman   was   governed   with   the rules   applicable   to   the   employees   of   IGNCA,     while   he   was   in   the services of the management ie IGNCA. Thus, statement of MW1 Sh Bijender clearly shows that workman   was employed with IGNCA and the objection of the management that workman was not the employee of IGNCA , is baseless and incorrect. Further, in the cross examination dt   19/11/14,   it   has   also   been   admitted   by   MW­1   that   workman   was promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade­D. The Service Book of the   workman   has   been   proved   in   cross   examination   of   MW1   as EX.MW1/W­11.   From   the   document   ie   Service   Book,   it   is   clear   that workman was posted to the post of Stenographer Grade­D in the pay­ scales   of   Rs.1200­30­1560­EB­40­2040   in   the   year   1996.   Once   the document of management, itself admits and states that the workman was   promoted   to   the   post   of   Stenographer   Grade­D,   management cannot   be   allowed   to   contradict this  position  by  saying  that    post  of Stenographer   Grade­D   was   not   a   promotional   post   or   that   workman was not posted to the post of Stenographer Grade­D. The document Ex.WW1/1   and   document   Ex.MW1/W­11   ie   Service   Book   of   the workman clearly shows that workman was promoted & posted at   the post of Stenographer Grade­D vide letter dt 14/08/96 against existing vacancy   from   the   date   of   joining   of   new   post.   Since   the   document Ex.WW1/1 clearly says that workman has been promoted against the existing   vacancy,     it   cannot   be   said   that   workman   was   working   on temporary post or was not a regular employee of the management.