BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

TRIBUNAL-II GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO.220 OF 1999

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri Satya Pal

S/o Suraj Prakash,
C/o Delhi Labour Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari. …Claimant

Versus

Central Road Research Institute

Through its Director
Delhi-Mathura Road
New Delhi 110 020. …Respondent

AFFIDAVIT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE

I Anil Kumar son of Ram Prakash, aged 50 years, having office at

Central Road Research Institute, PO. CRRI, Delhi Mathura Road

New Delhi-110 020, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. I am working in the Respondent Organisation as Controller of

Administration and as such I am fully aware of the facts and

circumstances of the present case and am fully competent to swear

this affidavit.

2. I say that CSIR is an autonomous body created by the Govt.

of India to achieve the objectives of promotion of Scientific &

Industrial Research in the country and it has been registered as a

Society under the Societies Registration Act 1960. And as such it

has its own governing body controls and guides the activities of the

Society to achieve commanding heights in the field of R & D.

3. I say that the governing body of CSIR has adopted FR & SR,

CSS (CCA) & Conduct Rules and other Government Rules for

regulating the service conditions of its employees. CSIR & its Instts

are covered under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1986 and the

Central Administrative Tribunal is the initial forum for raising any

litigation concerning the service conditions of its employees.

4. I say that the Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research

(SCIR) is not an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as it is predominantly a research

institute giving know-how and skill to an industry. That CSIR is not

engaged in production supply or distribution of goods and services

as would justify it to be termed an “industry.”

5. I say that role of CSIR is involved in the establishment,

maintenance and management of labororatires workshops, institutes

and organisations to further scientific and industrial researches and

to utilise and exploit for purposes of experiment or otherwise any

discovery or invention likely to be use for Indian Industry. That it is

involved in the collection dissemination of information in regard inter

alia publication of scientific papers and a journal of industrial

research and development.

6. I say that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in CSIR &

Anr. Vs. Padma Ravinder Nath & Ors that the CSIR and its

Constituents are not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of

the I.D. Act 1947.

7. I say that the Claimant was engaged by the CRRI w.e.f. 1.1.87

as causal labour and the claimants counter counterparts having

identical work were not being treated as regular employees and not

being paid salaries in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 and further it is

submitted that the claimant was engaged as causal man-power on

daily wage basis for certain activities of temporary/seasonal nature

from time to time.

8. I say that the claimant was engaged as a casual labourer

w.e.f. 7.5.87 and that his engagement was automatically terminated

after completion of the working days for which he was engaged. It is

further submitted that there were neither any sanctioned nor

available regular post and that there was no work for a regular post

and that there was no work of a regular nature with the CRRI.

9. I say that the question of regularisation of the claimant does

not arise. I say that the benefit of salaries in the pay scale with

usual allowances are only given to regular employees and not

causal labourers.

10. I say that the services of the claimant was dispensed with on

28.6.88 on the ground that there was no more work left for which the
claimant had been engaged as a casual labourer. That the

claimants service was validly terminated.

11. I say that the claimant did not made any representation to the

Respondent as alleged and as such no representation was ever

made by the claimant.

12. I say that the claimant has not worked continuously for more

the 240 days in a calendar year. Hence he could not acquire the

status of permanent employee under IDA 1947. The claimant was

engaged as Helper from time to time and that each time the man-

days sanction was obtained.

13. I say that the claimant, in the calendar year 1987, worked from

May 87 to Dec’ 87 for a period of 162 days and in the calendar year

1988 the claimant worked from Jan’ 88 June’ 88 for a period of 78

days.

14. I say that the action of the CRRI is not violative of Art 14, 16

and 39 (d) of the constitution of India.

15. I say that as the claimant’s own admission that he was

working as a daily wage worker and therefore, there was no

exploitation of labour in view of the nature and purpose for which the

claimant was engaged.

16. I say that the issue of memo or chargesheet for misconduct is

not applicable for a daily wage worker as he is not governed by the

disciplinary rules, which are applicable only for regular cadre

employees.

17. I say that none of the claimant’s juniors have been retained in

service and that he has been thrown out of a job. Further I say that

CSIR are having its own recruitment and service rules and all the

recruitment have to be made strictly in accordance with the

procedure laid down in the rules and no juniors have been retained

in service without following the procedure laid down under

recruitment rules.

18. I say the question of display of seniority list, notice pay and

compensation does not arise as the claimant was a daily wage

worker for a specified period against a particular sanction of a

particular job and after completion of the job the claimants services

stood terminated automatically and his services dispensed with.

19. I say that termination of service is not violative of Section 30 of

the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 and as such CRRI is not

an establishment under the said Act. CRRI is a constituent unit of

CSIR which is a Regd. Society under the Societies Registration Act

1860 and not a shop or a private estate. Therefore the question of

violation of the said act does not arise, at this juncture.

20. I say that the claimants termination of services is not violative

of Sections 25 F,G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 read with

Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules 1957.

It is submitted that the claimant was clearly communicated with the

O.M from time to time, the CRRI employs casual man-power on daily

wage basis for some activities of temporary/seasonal nature and

normally such engagement is of 3 to 4 weeks duration or less at a

time and the engagement is to be concluded after related phase of

work and the same was clearly intimated to the applicant that his

engagement is not against any regular vacancy, but is of a purely

casual nature which may be discontinued at any time without any

notice & assigning any reason as the situation may warrant.

21. I say that the claimant accepted the abovesaid terms and

conditions of the said O.M. and worked in the unit of CRRI on daily

wage basis from time to time according to the abovesaid O.M.

22. I say that since CSIR is not an industry within the meaning of

the I.D. Act 1947 and Section 25 N of .D. Act 1947 does not attract.

It is further submitted that it is not a retrenchment, rather the

engagement was automatically terminated after completion of work

for which applicant was engaged.

23. I say that the claimant approached the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) and the case was defended before the

A.L.C. and judgement about the status of CSIR as industry was filed.

That the A.L.C. was informed that an SLP is pending in the Supreme

Court of India with regard to the decision whether CSR is an industry

or not, and in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement

dated 18.7.2000 had held that CSIR is not an industry within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act, 1947.

24. I say that, the Ministry of labour, vide its letter dated 4.4.97,

denied to consider the matter for reference for adjudication, since

the S.L.P filed by the CSIR, was pending adjudication before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, and accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court

has held in its judgement dated 18.7.2000 that CSIR is not an

Industry. Therefore on the above stated reason alone is sufficient to

dismiss the claim of the claimant.

25. I say that in the above said facts and circumstances the claim

petition is deserved to be dismissed.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

I the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the

contents of my above reply affidavit are true and correct, no part of it
is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this day of July 2004.

DEPONENT