Sh. Anil Kumar vs The Office Commanding 168 FMN Cutting Platoon on 4 November 2026

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

Sh. Anil Kumar, S/o Sh. Mahender Singh, F-491/10, Rajender Nagar, Roorkee, Haridwar,Uttarakhand-247667. ...Applicant/Claimant

VERSUS

The Officer Commanding. 168, FMN Cutting Platoon, C/o 54 RCC (GREF), C/o 56 APO, Pin-930054.

...Managements/Respondents

Award 04.11.2026 In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (Hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’) , the Government of India, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. F. No. D-841/A/2020/61/IRDDN dated 08.10.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between workmen and managements for adjudication by this Tribunal in the following terms: Whether the termination of the service of Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Mahender Singh, who was engaged in Officer Commanding, 168, FMN Cutting Platoon, C/o 54 RCC(GREF) C/o 56 APO Pin 930054 for the period from 17.04.2009 to 15.09.2012 is proper and justified.

Whether the workman is entitled for regularization/reinstatement of their service in the said Estb.? If not, what relief/remedies, the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

Pursuant the said reference, the claimant appeared and filed his claim statement. Later vide order dated 22.02.2023, the claimant was granted liberty to file an amended claim statement, which was filed subsequently on 27.02.2023 and on 08.01.2024, the management had also filed its amended written statement. In his amended claim statement, the claimant stated that he was appointed as an O.E.M. (Operator Excavating Machinery) with effect from 17.04.2009 and was allotted GREF No. GS-190918N. He claimed that he had been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and had maintained an unblemished service record. According to him, his last drawn wages were Rs. 21,000/- per month. The claimant further stated that, during his service, he developed medical and psychiatric problems and went through treatment for the same. He alleged that while he was undergoing treatment, he was transferred from 84 RCC GREF to 54 RCC and was required to perform his duties at a high-altitude location, which adversely affected his health. He also referred to difficulties in his family, including the serious medical condition of his father, and contended that the resulting circumstances caused him significant mental stress and depression. It was further stated that, due to his deteriorating mental condition, the management pressurised him to resign from service and obtained his resignation under pressure when he was not in a sound state of mind. The claimant asserted that, after his health improved, he approached the management on 05.02.2014 and requested that he be taken back into service. He alleged that his despite several representations seeking reinstatement, the management didn’t take any action in this regard. The claimant also alleged that no notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was given to him; that no domestic enquiry was conducted against him; and that the management had violated the principles of natural justice and the applicable provisions of the Act. He further claimed that he had completed the requisite period of continuous service and was entitled to regularisation and the benefits admissible to a regular employee performing similar duties. Accordingly, he sought reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages, regularisation with retrospective effect and the difference in salary, along with other appropriate relief. In response, the management, in its amended written statement, raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the claim. It contended that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it, as it performed sovereign functions and of the Government and did not carry out the activity which can be considered as a trade or business and also does not carry out any activity related to production, distribution or supply of goods or services meant for satisfying for human wants. It further contended that there was no industrial dispute between the parties, that the claimant had no locus standi to maintain the claim, and that the claim was based on incorrect and misleading averments and was liable to be dismissed. On merits, the management denied the material allegations made by the claimant and maintained that he had been appointed as an O.E.M. on 17.04.2009 and had subsequently resigned from service on his own request. It specifically contended that the claimant had submitted his resignation application on 23.07.2012, citing personal and domestic reasons, including the need to look after his aged parents and family. According to the management, the resignation was accepted by the competent authority on 15.09.2012 in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. Therefore, it denied that the claimant's services had been terminated by the management or that he had been compelled to resign. The management further contended that the present claim was not maintainable before this Tribunal, placing reliance upon the judgment dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ansari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., arising out of Civil Appeal No. 10131 of 2016 (2013 SCC OnLine Gau 201), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Central Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in service matters concerning personnel of the Border Roads Organization (BRO), also known as the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The management further denied that the claimant had informed it about any psychiatric or other medical problems during his service. It asserted that, as per its records, the claimant had neither reported to the Unit MI Room for treatment of the alleged psychiatric condition nor claimed reimbursement of medical expenses in that regard. It also relied upon the claimant's resignation application, his final settlement documents and the correspondence relating to his National Pension System (NPS) claim to contend that he had voluntarily resigned from service. The management further stated that the claimant had subsequently submitted representations seeking reinstatement, but the same had been dealt with through the prescribed channel. It denied that the claimant was entitled to reinstatement, regularisation, back wages or any other consequential benefits and prayed for dismissal of the claim. A rejoinder was filed by the claimant, wherein he denied the averments made by the management in its written statement and reiterated the averments made in the claim statement. Thereafter, when the matter was at the stage of framing of issues, the learned AR for the management raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the present dispute. It was contended that no notification had been issued by the Central Government conferring jurisdiction upon this Tribunal to adjudicate the service dispute of the claimant, who was employed with the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), and that the present dispute was nor maintainable under the Act. The Ld. AR for the management further contended that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal was barred in view of the legal position governing the service matters of personnel of the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). In view of the aforesaid objection, the learned ARs for the parties were directed to address arguments on the preliminary question of maintainability and jurisdiction. During the course of arguments, the management placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Ansari v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10131 of 2016, decided on 02.02.2017. Before proceeding further, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is required to be reproduced herein: “What surfaces from the above discussion is that the present respondent, as a member of the GREF and a member of the Armed Forces, cannot, in the light of the decision, in R. Viswan (supra) read with the decision, in Vidyawati’s case (supra), and could not have taken recourse to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Consequently, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has/had no jurisdiction in the matter of the petitioner’s (i.e., the present respondent’s) grievance as regards refusal to grant him financial upgradation and, at the same time, the respondent’s grievance shows that even the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot redress, and could not have redressed, his grievance as regards refusal to grant him financial upgradation. The remedy of the respondent, therefore, lies in making appropriate application in the High Court, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, or in instituting appropriate suit for remedy of his grievances.” Relying upon the said judgment, the management contended that the service matters of personnel belonging to GREF were not within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Armed Forces Tribunal and that the present dispute was, therefore, not maintainable before this Tribunal. On the other hand, the claimant opposed the preliminary objection and contended that the reference had been made by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication and that the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate the dispute referred to it. The submissions have been considered and the record has been perused. No doubt, the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication. However, the mere making of a reference does not, by itself, dispense with the necessity of examining a properly raised objection to the jurisdiction of the adjudicatory forum. Where a question arises as to whether the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the dispute referred to it, such question may be considered as a preliminary issue before proceeding to examine the merits of the dispute. It is an admitted fact that the claimant was engaged as an O.E.M. in GREF. Further, it is an admitted position that he resigned from service and his resignation was accepted. He was a permanent member of the Armed Forces, as he was admittedly selected pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper by the management for the post of O.E.M. He appeared in the written examination, interview, medical examination and police verification. Training was also imparted to him before he was posted at 84 RCC GREF, C/o 99 APO. After rendering 2–3 years of service, he himself resigned from the service, which is admitted by him. He claims to be a 'workman'. Section 2(s) of the Act defines the term 'workman', which is reproduced hereinbelow: 2 [(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 3 [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.] From the aforesaid definition, it is evident that a person serving in the Armed Forces is specifically excluded from the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the claimant was in service with the management, i.e., armed forces. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Ansari (supra), even the claimant cannot approach the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Armed Forces Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. At best, he may approach the Hon'ble High Court by way of a writ petition. In view of the specific provision excluding members of the Armed Forces from the definition of 'workman', this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the claimant and in favour of the management. Consequently, the claim of the claimant stands dismissed. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for notification under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case file be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG Dated 04.11.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II