रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/ 0007/ 2003--05
REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04 /0007 /2003-05
भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 8
नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 17 फरवरी 23 , 2013 , शनिवार/माघ 28-फाल्गुन4, 1934 No. 8 ] NEW DELHI , FEBRUARY 17- FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 , SATURDAY/MAGHA 28-PHALGUNA 4, 1934
भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग ।। खण्ड उप -खण्ड ( ii) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii )
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2013
इस सम्बंध में षडयंत्र अथवा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के सम्बंध में तथा सी संव्यवहार में किए गए कोई अन्य अपराध या अपराधों या इन तथ्यों से उत्पन्न अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण बिहार राज्य के सम्बंध में करती है ।
[.सं. 228/48/2012 एवीडी- II | राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 8th February, 2013
S. O. 436. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No.25 of 1946 ), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Bihar , Home ( Police ) Department , vide Notification No. 1 /C.B.I -80-03/2012 H. ( P )/9441 dated 6th December, 2012 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation and inquire into the complaint DRI- F.No.718 ( 11 )/08 /SEIZ/ PRU /2012-13 dated 26-7-2012 which का. आ. 436. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 सपठित धारा 5 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए बिहार राज्य सरकार , गृह ( पुलिस ) विभाग , की दिनांक 6 दिसम्बर , 2012 की अधिसूचना संख्या सीबीआई 80 03/2012 एच. ( पी )/9441 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से दिनांक 26 7 2012 की शिकायत डीआरआई एफ. संख्या 718 ( II )/ 08/ एसईआईजेड/ पीआरयू/ 2012-13 जोकि मसरूर अहमद उर्फ मास्टर , आयु 34 वर्ष , पुत्र मकबूल गनी , निवासी ग्राम अधकपारिया, पोस्ट एवं थाना रामगढ़वा , जिला पूर्वी चम्पारन तथा सूरज कुमार सिंह आयु 24 वर्ष पुत्र श्री बाघेश्वर सिंह निवासी ग्राम एवं पोस्ट कधन , पुलिस थाना केशरिया , जिला पूर्वी चम्पारन द्वारा देश में थाइलैंड से आयात किए गए होम थियेटर में एफआईसीएन छिपा कर तस्करी करने में शामिल होने पर दिनांक 257-2012 को 24,50,000 रूपए के जाली भारतोय नोटों को राजस्व आसूचना निदेशालय , पटना द्वारा अब्त करने के सम्बंध भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम संख्या 45 ) के अधीन धाराओं 489-ए, 489 बी, 489-सी और 120 बी के तहत किए गए अपराधों तथा प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा और 137 GL2013
(1325) [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1326
1. Cochin Regional Office , Directorate of Enforcement, IVth floor, Tharakkandam Centre , Banerji Road, Cochin-682018
2. Calicut Sub- regional office , Directorate of Enforcement, IIIrd Floor , Kendriya Bhavan , M.S Baburaj Road, Kallai , Calicut, Kerala -673003
3. Bhubaneshwar Sub - regional office , Directorate of Enforcement, N - 3 / 134 , Naya Palli , Bhubaneshwar- 751015 (Odisha)
[F. No. E- 11017/1 /2012- AD ( Hindi -4 ) ] CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI , Director (OL) disclose the Commission of offences under sections 489- A, 489 - B, 489 - C and 120-B ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) relating to seizure of Fake Indian CurrencyNotes of Rs.24,50,000 effected on 25-07-2012by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Patna from Masoor Ahmad alias Master, aged 34 years S/o Maqbool Gani , resident of Village - Adhakarparia, Post and Police Station Ramgarhawa , District-East Chamaparan and Suraj Kumar Singh , aged 24 years S/o Sri Bhageshwar Singh resident ofVillage and Post Kadhan , Kesaria Police Station, District East Champaran involved in smuggling of FICN concealed in a Home Theater imported from Thailand for circulation in the country and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences committed in course ofthe same transaction or arising out of the same facts
विदेश मंत्रालय ( सीपीवी प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2013
[F. No. 228 /48/2012-AVD- II ] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
का. आ. 438.-राजनयिक और कांसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क) के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्रीमती पदमा रानी सैकिया , सहायक को 13/2/13 से भारत के राजदूतावास, ग्वाटेमाला में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी , 2013
[सं. टी. 4330/01/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (CPV DIVISION) New Delhi , the 13th February, 2013 का. आ. 437.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय और उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों को अधिसूचित करती है जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है:-
1. कोचीन क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , चतुर्थ तल , थाराकंडम सेन्टर , बनर्जी रोड , कोचीन-682018
2. कालीकट उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , तृतीय तल , केन्द्रीय भवन , एम.एस. बाबूराज मार्ग , कल्लाई , कालीकट , केरल-673003
S.O. 438. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and fees ) Act , 1948 ( 41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorize Smt . Padma Rani Saikia, Assistant , Embassy of India , Guatemala to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 13th February, 2013.
[No. T. 4330/01/2006 ] R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. (Consular) 3. भुवनेश्वर उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , एन -3 / 134 , नया पल्ली, भुवनेश्वर -751015 ( ओडिशा)
[फा. सं. ई -11017/ 1/2012- एडी ( हिंदी -4) ] चंद्रभान नारनौली , निदेशक ( राजभाषा )
सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2013
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi , the 5th February, 2013
का. आ.439-केंद्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्रीय प्रचार निदेशालय , पूर्वी ब्लॉक- IV, लेवल-III , आर. के. पुरम , नई दिल्ली ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ कार्यालयों, जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है :-
1. प्रादेशिक कार्यालय , भुवनेश्वर
S. O. 437.-In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of theOfficial Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government herbey notifies the following Regional and Sub -Regional offices of the Directorate of Enforcement under the Department of Revenue , where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .
1327 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2. क्षेत्रीय प्रचार निदेशलय , बालेश्वर
3. क्षेत्रीय प्रचार कार्यालय , बरहमपुर
एमएमआरडीए यह सुनिश्चित करेगा कि एमएमआरडीए में निदेशक ( तकनीकी ) के रूप में श्री एस.पी. खाड़े को दिये गये कार्यों के संबंध में वह मुख्य बिजली निरीक्षक नहीं होंगे ।
4. क्षेत्रीय प्रचार कार्यालय , सम्बलपुर
[फा. सं. ई-11017/6/2012- हिंदी] प्रियम्वदा , निदेशक ( रा.भा. )
मुख्य बिजली निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त व्यक्ति वह प्रशिक्षण लेंगे जिसे केंद्र सरकार इस उद्देश्य के लिए आवश्यक समझे तथा ऐसा प्रशिक्षण सरकार की संतुष्टि के स्तर तक पूरा किया जाएगा ।
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
[फा. सं. -42/3/2010- आर एण्ड आर ] ज्योति अरोड़ा, संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi , the 7th February, 2013
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi , the 6th February, 2013
S.O. 439 .--- In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Directorate of Field Publicity, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ) , more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-
1. Regional office, Bhubaneswar
2. Field Publicity office , Baleswar
3. Field Publicity office , Berhampur
4. Field Publicity office , Sambalpur
[F. No. E- 11017 /6/2012-Hindi ] PRIYAMVADA , Director (O.L. )
विद्युत मंत्रालय
S.O. 440. In supersession of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 30-03-2012 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( 36 of 2003 ) read withQualification , power and function of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules , 2006 notified on 17-8-2006, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.P. Khade Director (Technical ) , Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ( MMRDA ) , as Chief Electrical Inspector for Metro and Mono Rail projects of MMRDA, from the date of this Notification till his tenure in MMRDA, subject to fulfillment of the qualification and Condition mentioned in the above Rule .
नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2013
The above mentioned officer shall exercise the powers and perform his functions in respect of electrical works , electrical installations and electrical rolling stock inoperation within the areas occupied by the MMRDA or in respect of works and all electrical installations under the control of MMRDA/ belonging to MMRDA as per the procedure provided in Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply ) Regulations , 2010 .
MMRDA will ensure that Shri S.P.Khade will not be ChiefElectrical Inspector in respect of the work assigned to him as Director (Technical ) in MMRDA.
का. आ. 440. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 30-3-2012 को समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अधिक्रमण में और 17-8-2006 को अधिसूचित मुख्य बिजली निरीक्षक और बिजली निरीक्षक नियमावली , 2006 के अर्हता , विद्युत और कार्य के साथ पठित विद्युत अधिनियम , 2003 (2003 का 36 ) की धारा 162 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एस.पी. खाड़े , निदेशक ( तकनीकी ) , मुम्बई महानगर क्षेत्र विकास प्राधिकरण ( एमएमआरडीए ) को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से एमएमआरडीए में उनके कार्यकाल तक उपर्युक्त नियम में उल्लिखित अर्हता और शर्त को पूरा करने के अध्यधीन एमएमआरडीए की मेट्रो और मोनो रेल परियोजनाओं के लिए मुख्य बिजली निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
The person appointed as Chief Electrical Inspector shall undergo such training as the Central Government may consider it necessary for the purpose and such training shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Government.
[F. No. 42/3/2010 - R & R ] JYOTI ARORA , JA . Secy.
उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अधिकारी केंद्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण ( सुरक्षा और विद्युत आपूर्ति से संबंधित उपाय ) विनियम , 2010 में दी गई प्रक्रिया के अनुसार एमएमआरडीए के अधिकार वाले क्षेत्रों अथवा एमएमआरडीए के नियंत्रणाधीन/एमएमआरडीए से संबंधित कार्यों के संबंध में तथा सभी बिजली संस्थापनाओं में बिजली कार्यों, बिजली संस्थापनाओं , बिजली रोलिंग स्टॉक के संबंध में अधिकार का प्रयोग करेंगे और अपना कार्य निष्पादित करेंगे ।
1328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य एवं सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 441. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस
लाइसेंसधारी का
भामा.सं. भाग
अनु. वर्ष
सं. संख्या
स्वीकृत करने की तिथि
नाम व पता
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8) ( 9)
31-12-2012
1. 3902055
4984
1995
पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्व के पॉलीइथाइलीन पाइप्स
मेसर्स पर्वती एग्रो प्लास्ट जे-26 , एमआईडीसी कुपवड तालुका मिरज जिला सांगली
महाराष्ट्र-416436
2. 3902560 1-1-2013
12818
2010
बोर/नलकूप के लिए अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी स्क्रीन और केसिंग पाइप
मेसर्स पारस पीवीसी पाइप एंड फिटिंग्स प्रा.लि. स.नं. 191 से 193 10वां माइल स्टोन भालवानी तालुका पारनेर जिला अहमदनगर महाराष्ट्र-414103
10-1-201
3. 3908976
13334
1
1998
मलाई निकाला हुआ दूध पावडर-विशिष्टि- भाग 1 : मानक श्रेणी
मेसर्स मलगंगा मिल्क एंड एग्रो प्रॉडक्ट्स प्रा.लि. गट सं. 2083 , निघोज तालुका पारनेर जिला अहमदनगर , महाराष्ट्र-414306
d 3806564 3-1-2013
14543
2004
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )
मेसर्स श्रीनिवास इंडस्ट्रीज स.न. 23 /3 /ए/पी हदगांव तालुका हदगांव जिला नांदेड महाराष्ट्र-431712
5. 3913464 22-1-2013
1166
1986
मेसर्स सनफ्रेश एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि.
संघनित दूध , आंशिक रूप से मलाई और मलाई रहित गाढ़ा दूध
गट सं. 121/5 से 121/10 एट रांजनखोल , पोस्ट तिलकनगर , तालुका राहाता जिला अहमदनगर
महाराष्ट्र-413720
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11 ]
बी. एम. हनीफ, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1329
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4, 1934
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs )
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2013
S.O. 441. --In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule : ---
SCHEDULE
Grant Date
SI . No.
Licences No.
Name and Address oftheParty
(3)
(1) (2)
(4)
13902055 31-12-2012
M/ s. Parvati Agro Plast J-26, MIDC Kupwad TalukaMiraj District Sangli Maharashtra -416436
2 3902560 1-1-2013
M/ s . Paras PVC Pipes And Fittings Pvt . Ltd. , S. No. 191 to 193 10thMile Stone Bhalwani , Taluka parner District Ahmednagar Maharashtra - 414103
3 3908976 10-1-2013
M/s .Malganga Milk & Agro
Product Pvt . Ltd. , GutNo. 2083 Nighoj , Taluka Parner District Ahmednagar Maharashtra - 414306
4 3806564 3-1-2013
M/ s . Shriniwas Industries
Sr. No. 23/3
A/ P Hadgaon Taluka Hadgaon District Nanded Maharashtra - 431712
5 3913464 22-1-2013
ISNo. Part Sec . Year Title ofthe Standard
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
4984
1995 High density polyethylene pipes forpotable watersupplies
2010
12818
Unplasticized PVC screen and casing pipesfor bore/ tubewell
1
13334
1998 SkimmedMilk Powder- Specification- Part 1: Standard Grade
2004
14543
Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)
1166
Condensed Milk .
1986
M/ s. Sunfresh Agro Industries Pvt . Ltd ..
GutNo. 121/5 to 121/10 AtRanjankhol PostTilak Nagar Taluka Rahata District Ahmednagar Maharashtra - 413720 Partly Skimmed and Skimmed Condensed Milk
[ No. CMD/ 13 : 111
B. M. HANEEF, Scientist Fand lead
नई दिल्ली , ४ फरवरी , 2013
का. आ. 442. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1330
अनुसूची
लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम
रद्द करने की तिथि
लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
सं. सीएम/एल-
15-1-2013
भामा 4985 : 2000
1. 7818692
मेसर्स कार्तिक एग्रो केम प्रा.लि.
प्लाट नं. डी-102 ,
पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप्स
एमआईडीसी इंड. एरिया जिला नांदेड , महाराष्ट्र-431603
[सं. सीएमडी/ 13: 13 ]
बी. एम. हनीफ , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2013
S.O. 442. In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with efect from the date indicated against each : -
SCHEDULE
Name and Address of the Licensee Licences No.CM/L
Sl . No.
1 7818692
M/ sKartik Agro Chem Pvt . Ltd. ,
Plot No. D- 102 , MIDC Indl . Area District Nanded Maharashtra -431603
Date of cancellation Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/suspension
15-1-2013 IS4985:2000
Unplasticized PVC pipes for potable water supplies
[No. CMD/ 13 : 13 ] ]
B. M. HANEEF, Scientist ' F ' & Head
नई दिल्ली, ४ फरवरी , 2013
का. आ. 443. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :- ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
भामा सं./ भाग/
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता
की तिथि वर्ष/
सं. संख्या
माह
4
!
2
3
1 3902156 101-2013 प्रेसिसीयन इलेक्ट्रीकल्स ,
खण्ड/वर्ष
5
6
भा.मा. 3854 : 1997 घरेलु और समान प्रयोजनों
के लिए स्विचें
तल मंजिल , गाला सं. 3 एवं 4 ,
चौधरी इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , विलेज नावधार , वसई पूर्व , जिला ठाणे-401210 महाराष्ट्र
3 01 2013
2 3904362
माईलस्टोन इण्डस्ट्रीज
भा.मा. 4250 : 1980
गाला सं. बी 10. तिरूपति उद्योग
बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर (द्रवीपरक और ग्राइन्डर )
नगर, इण्डस्ट्रीयल प्रिमायसेस को आपरेटिव सोसाइटी लि. सातीवली रोड , विलेज वालीव , तालुका वसई पूर्व , जिला ठाणे -401208 महाराष्ट्र 1331
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4 2
3
1
3-01-2013
3. 3906265
6
5
भा.मा. 4250 : 1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर (द्रवीपरक और ग्राइन्डर )
क्लीक होम अप्लायंसेस तल मंजिल , गाला सं. 5, तिरूपति को. हा. सोसायटी , माकडवाला कंपाउण्ड शिवाजी नगर , अप्पा पाडा रोड , मालाड़ पूर्व , मुंबई-400097
03-01-2013
4. 3912563
भा.मा. 3854 : 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिएस्विचे
कोना इण्डस्ट्रीज 28 , श्रीनाथ इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट, साईनाथ को आपटिव सोसायटी , ऑफ महाकाली केव्से रोड, अंधेरी पूर्व, मुंबई-4000५
3/01/2013
5. 3912664
भा.मा. 1293 : 2005 250 वोल्टता और 16 एम्पीअर्स तक रेटित धारा के प्लगस और सॉकेट-
कोना इण्डस्ट्रीज 28 , श्रीनाथ इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , साईनाथ को आपरेटिव सोसायटी, ऑफ महाकाली केव्स रोड , अंधेरी पूर्व , मुंबई-400093
भा.मा. 371 : 1999 सीलिंग रोजिज
3-01-2013
6. 3912765
कोना इण्डस्ट्रीज 28 , श्रीनाथ इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , साईनाथ को आपरेटिव सोसायटी, ऑफ महाकाली केव्स रोड , अंधेरी पूर्व , मुंबई -400093
7/01/2013
7. 3906063
भा.मा. 1293 : 2005 250 वोल्टता और 16 एम्पीअर्स तक रेटित धारा के प्लगस और सॉकेट आउटलेटस
एंकर इलेक्ट्रीकल्स, प्रा. लि. , यू-1, 66/2, 66/3, 66/5 , 67/1 , 67/2, पतालिया रोड , भीमपोर , नानी दमन , जिला दमन केन्द्र शासित प्रदेश दमन एवं दीव-396210
7-01-2013
8. 3906164
भा.मा. 11037 : 1984 इलेक्ट्रोनिक टाइप फॅन रेग्युलेटर
एंकर इलेक्ट्रीकल्स , प्रा. लि. , यू-1, 66/2,66/3 , 66/5 , 67/1 , 67/2, पतालिया रोड , भीमपोर , नानी दमन , जिला दमन केन्द्र शासित प्रदेश दमन एवं दीव-396210
22-01-2013
9. 3915064
भा.मा. 1293 : 2005 250 वोल्टता और 16 एम्पीअर्स तक रेटित धारा के प्लगस और सॉकेट आउटलेटस
जी नाईन मोडुलर प्रा.लि. , फोर्स हाउस , बीकेटी इण्डस्ट्रीयल पार्क , सेक्टर बी, गौराइपाडा, वरुण इण्ड. के नजदीक , वालीव जिला ठाणे-401208 , महाराष्ट्र
22-01-2013
10. 3915165
भा.मा. 3854 : 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिएस्विचें
जी नाईन मोडुलर प्रा.लि. , फोर्स हाउस , बीकेटी इण्डस्ट्रीयल पार्क , सेक्टर बी , गौराइपाडा, वरुण इण्ड. के नजदीक , वालीव जिला ठाणे-401208 , महाराष्ट्र 1332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2
3
4
11. 3913767 28/01/2013 क्रॉम्पटन ग्रीव्ज लि.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
5
6
थ्री फेज इण्डक्शन मोटर
भा. मा. 325 1996
मशीन IV डिविजन 196 , 197 एवं 198 , कुनदैम इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , कुनदैम , जिला उत्तर गोवा , गोवा-403115
12. 3914567 30/01/2013 पार्श्व इण्डस्ट्रीज ,
भा.मा. 4250 : 1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर (द्रवीपरक और ग्राइन्डर )
65/525 , मोतीलाल नगर, प्रथम तल , रोड सं. 1 , साईनाथ रेस्टोरेंट के सामने , गोरेगांव पश्चिम , मुंबई-400104, महाराष्ट्र
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13:11 |
ए. एस. जामखिंडीकर , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एम डी एम III )
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2013
S.O. 443. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
GrantDate
Sl . No. Licence No.
Product
IS No/Part/ Sec Year
Name and address ( factory)
ofthe party
1
2
3
4
1. 3902156 01/01/2013
5
6
IS 3854 : 1997 Switches for domestic and similar purposes
Precision Electricals Ground Floor, Gala No. 3 & 4 Choudhary Internatinal Industrial Estate, Village Navghar Vasai ( E) Distt.: Thane-401210 , Maharashtra
2. 3904362 03/01/2013
IS 4250: 1980 Domestic Electric food Mixers( liquidizes and grinders)
Milestone Industries Gala No. B - 10, Tirupati Udyog Nagar Indl . Premises Co - op SocietyLtd. , Sativali Road , Village Valiv, Taluka Vasai - East Distt .: Thane-401208 Maharashtra
3. 3906265 03/01/2013
IS 4250 : 1980 Domestic Electric food Mixers(liquidizes and grinders)
ClikHome Appliances Ground Floor, Gala No. 5 , Tirupati CHS Society, Makadwala Compound , Shivaji Nagar, Appa Pada Road, Malad ( East) Mumbai -400097
4. 3912563 03/01/2013
IS 3854: 1997 Switches for domestics and similar purposes
Cona Industries 28 , Shrinath Ind . Estate , Sainath Co - op . , Society, OffMahakali Caves Road , Andheri East, Mumbai -400093 1333 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
2
3
4
5
6
5. 3912664 03/01/2013
IS 1293 : 2005
Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rates current up to 16 amperes
Cona Industries 28, Shrinath Ind . Estate, Sainath Co - op. , Society, OffMahakali Caves Road , Andheri East, Mumbai-400093
6. 3912765 03/01/2013
IS 371 : 1999
Cieling roses-
Cona Industries 28, Shrinath Ind . Estate , Sainath Co- op . , Society, OffMahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093
7. 3906063 07/01/2013
IS 1293 : 2005
Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rated current upto 16 ampers
Anchor Electricals Pvt . Ltd. , 66/2, 66/3 , 66/5,67/1 , 67/2, Patalia Road , Bhimpore, Nani Daman , Distt. : Daman UT ofDaman & Diu-396210
8. 3906164 07/01/2013
IS 11037 : 1984
Electronic type fan regulators
Anchor Electricals Pvt . Ltd. , 66/2, 66/3, 66/5,67/ 1,67/2 , Patalia Road, Bhimpore, Nani Daman, Distt .: Daman, UT ofDaman & Diu-396210
9. 3915064 22/01/2013
IS 1293 : 2005
Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rated current up to 16 amperes
G-NineModular Pvt . Ltd., Force House , Bkt. Indl . Park , Sector B, Gauraipada, Near Varun Inds , Valiv Distt: Thane -401208 , Maharrashtra
IS 3854 : 1997 10. 3915165 22/01/2013
Switches for domestics and similar purposes
G-NineModular Pvt . Ltd. , ForceHouse, Bkt. Indl . Park, Sector B , Gauraipada, Near Varun Inds , Valiv Distt: Thane-401208 , Maharrashtra
IS 325: 1996 11. 3913767 28/01/2013
Three-phase induction motors
CromptonGreaves Ltd. , Machine IV Division 196, 197 and 198 , Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim North Goa, Goa-403115
12. 3914567 30/01/2013
IS4250 : 1980
Domestic electric food- mixers ( liquidizes and grinders)
Parshva Industries 65/525 , Motilal Nagar, Ist Floor, Road No. 1 , Opp. Saianth Restaurant Goregaon West, Mumbai -400104
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( MDM - III )
537G1/2013-2 1334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[ PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) |
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
का. आ. 444.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
क्रम सं. संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
7जनवरी , 2013
संशोधन संख्या 4
दिसम्बर , 2012
आईएस 9295 : 1983 वाहक पट्टे हेतु आइडलरस के लिए इस्पात की नलियों की विशिष्टि ( पहला मुनरीक्षण )
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मांनक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[ संदर्भ : एमटीडी 19/टी-51 । पी. घोष, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
S. O. 444. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
Sl . No.
No. and Year of the
amendment
No. and Year of the Indian Standard(s) amendment( s)
Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
07 January, 2013
Amendment No. 4
December 2012
1. IS 9295 : 1983 Specification for Steel Tubes for Idlers for Belt Conveyors (First Revision)
Copy of the standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bengalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur . Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref. MTD 19/ 1-511
P. GHOSH , Scientist ' " & Head (Met . Engg . )
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2013
का. आ. 445.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के उपक्रमों के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 या अधिक प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :
1335 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
आयल एण्ड नेचुरल गैस कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड
( i ) ओएनजीसी अकादमी , ओएनजीसी, कौलागढ़ रोड, देहरादून -248195
( ii ) वेधन प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान , ओएनजीसी , कौलागढ़ रोड , देहरादून -248195
( iii ) केशव देव मालवीय पेट्रोलियम अन्वेषण संस्थान , ओएनजीसी , कौलागढ़ रोड, देहरादून -248195
( iv ) जियोपिक ओएनजीसी संस्थान , कौलागढ़ रोड , देहरादून , उत्तराखंड-248195
इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड
( i ) इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड (विपणन प्रभाग ) , अजमेर मंडल कार्यालय , ई -83 , शास्त्री नगर , लोहगल रोड , अजमेर -305006 ।
( ii ) इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( विपणन प्रभाग ) , लोनी एलपीजी संयंत्र , बन्थला-लोनी, गाजियाबाद , पिन-201102
( iii ) इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( विपणन प्रभाग ) , इंडियन एयर फोर्स , जोधपुर एएफएस , जोधपुर , पिन-342011
[सं. 11011/1/2012 (हिन्दी) |
डी. एस. रावत , संयुक्त निदेशक ( रा.भा. )
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 445.- In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purpose of the Unoin) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices ofthe Public Sector Undertakings under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , in which 80 or more per cent of the staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi :---
1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation limited
( i ) ONGC Academy, ONGC Kaulagarh Road , Dehradun- 248195 .
( ii ) Institute of Drilling Technology, ONGC Kaulagarh Road , Dehradun - 248195 .
( iii) KDMIPE . ONGC Kaulagarh Road . Dehradun - 248195.
( iv ) GEOPIC . ONGC Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun - 248195
2. IndianOil Corporation Limited
(i) Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Marketing Division ) Ajmer Division Office E- 83 , Shastri Nagar , Lohgal Road , Ajmer- 305006.
(ii ) Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Marketing Division ) Loni LPG Plant , Banthala- Loni , Ghaziabad , Pin -201102 .
( iii) Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Marketing Division ) Indian Air Force , Jodhpur AFS , Jodhpur, Pin - 342011 .
[No. 11011/1/2012 ( Hindi ) ) D. S. RAWAT. Jt . Director ( OL ) 1336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 446.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शवित्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है. इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप - हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया- वरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्विम् बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1337
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन : डोमजुड
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: हावड़ा
मौजा का नाम
कम सं
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मी.
एयर
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 आमड़े 21 307 00 05 80
301 00 04 30
300 00 00 30
299 00 03 90
2 अंकुरहाटी 30 141 00 00 20
142 00 02 90
152 00 00 30
151 00 02 50
150 00 00 70
154 00 02 20
159 00 00 20
146 00 02 70
160 00 01 10
163 00 03 30
162 00 00 30
169 00 02 40
170 00 01 40
173 00 00 20
174 00 01 20
176 00 00 90
177 00 00 20
184 00 00 70
186 00 00 60
185 00 00 40
192 00 01 80
193 00 00 20
194 00 01 80
196 00 01 00
213 00 00 70
212 00 00 20
1338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3
अंकुरहाटी 30 197
जारी..... 198
199
200
202
262
104
36
356
355
324
353
347
348
349
352
350
345
343
346
341
342
339
351
338
379
336
337
380
381
382
383
388
389
[PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 01 50 00 01 20 00 01 90 00 03 40 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 01 20 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 00 70 00 00 40 00 01 50 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 01 60 00 00 90 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 01 10 00 02 20 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 05 20 00 01 90 00 04 50 00 03 40 00 06 60
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1339
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
अंकुरहाटी 30 390 00 01 60
जारी..... 391 00 01 30
392 00 02 40
393 00 02 20
443 00 01 50
442 00 02 40
444 00 08 60
470 00 07 30
471 00 05 90
480 00 01 40
481 00 03 80
491 00 07 50
492 00 02 30
490 00 01 00
489 00 00 40
521 00 01 80
519 00 02 30
518 00 08 90
508 00 00 20
509 00 01 60
510 00 01 30
511 00 01 60
512 00 01 50
513 00 01 30
514 00 01 80
516 00 00 20
515 00 04 70
507 00 00 90
567 00 01 60
568 00 00 30
569 00 04 40
570 00 01 40
571 00 00 20
588 00 02 50
1340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2
3
अंकुरहाटी 30 589
जारी..... 590
591
585
3 राघबपुर 35
642
741
643
737
736
649
650
2010
651
732
653
652
657
654
655
656
658
709
708
659
706
705
704
678
703
702
679
680
687
688
PART II SEC. 3 (60)
4 5 6 00 00 90 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 50 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 08 30 00 03 00 00 00 20 00 03 90 00 02 00 00 00 80 00 00 20 00 07 40 00 00 20 00 04 50 00 01 00 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 04 50 00 01 00 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 04 00 00 01 60 00 05 10 00 00 40 00 00 60 00 00 20 00 03 00 00 03 20 00 02 90 00 01 10
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1341
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1 2 3
राघबपुर 35 681
जारी..... 686
691
684
685
837
836
835
898
838
840
839
841
842
844
843
848
852
519
479
480
478
476
477
481
475
470
472
471
468
467
466
318
294
537GI/2013-3
4 5 6 00 02 40 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 00 30 00 02 60 00 01 10 00 02 10 00 00 50 00 00 50 00 01 90 00 04 20 00 00 60 00 01 90 00 04 70 00 00 60 00 02 70 00 00 30 00 02 20 00 03 00 00 01 10 00 01 00 00 01 70 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 02 60 00 00 40 00 02 30 00 02 20 00 01 50 00 05 20 00 00 20 00 05 90 00 05 70
1342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
राघबपुर 35 295
जारी..... 293
292
290
289
288
287
285
5 नार्ना 40 3114
3145
3116
3146
3144
3143
3147
3191
3192
3222
3216
3219
3220
3218
3254
3255
3257
3259
3258
3293
3474
3296
3290
3291
3282
3285
[PART II-SEC . 3( i) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 01 00 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 02 60 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 01 20 00 01 20 00 04 40 00 00 20 00 06 80 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 01 90 00 00 70 00 00 90 00 00 60 00 03 50 00 02 40 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 03 80 00 00 20 00 01 90 00 00 40 00 02 40 00 02 50 00 01 50
[ भान II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ] .
1343
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2
3 4 5 6
नार्ना 40 3283 00 03 50
जारी..... 3421 00 00 40
3420 00 02 20
3419 00 01 30
3437 00 02 80
3438 00 05 30
3442 00 01 80
3446 00 00 30
3444 00 00 20
3443 00 01 70
3450 00 01 70
3462 00 01 20
3461 00 00 70
3460 00 00 70
3463 00 00 20
3466 00 01 60
3465 00 03 80
3468 00 00 70
3469 00 01 90
3471 00 02 20
3472 00 00 20
3470 00 00 20
3473 00 01 90
4304 00 00 70
4236 00 04 20
4215 00 03 40
4216- 00 02 40
4219 00 03 10
4221 00 00 30
4218 00 02 70
4650 00 00 20
4626 00 00 20
4733 00 00 20
4185 00 00 90
1344
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
3 4 5 6
1 2
नार्ना 40 4183 00 01 40
जारी..... 4184 00 01 10
4182 00 00 20
4642 00 01 70
4643 00 03 30
4646 00 00 30
4645 00 02 30
4639 00 04 00
4636 00 01 30
4635 00 04 20
4690 00 00 80
4628 00 00 20
4627 00 02 20
4625 00 00 90
4698 00 00 20
4699 00 00 40
4700 00 02 80
4701 00 01 40
4703 00 01 30
4704 00 03 00
4730 00 01 20
4729 00 00 40
4728 00 02 50
4727 00 00 30
4734 00 01 50
4735 00 00 50
4724 00 00 80
4723 00 02 40
4720 00 03 60
4719 00 00 70
4718 00 03 80
6 पूर्बनओपाड़ा 31 436 00 07 70
437 00 05 60
438/763 00 03 30
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
1345
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
पूब्र्बनओपाड़ा 31 438 00 07 90
जारी..... 439 00 06 60
423 00 03 10
415 00 01 00
416 00 01 30
422 00 02 90
417 00 01 60
421 00 01 90
418 00 02 70
420 00 00 50
419 00 03 80
410 00 02 30
409 00 02 40
408 00 01 50
407 00 01 20
403 00 02 90
401 00 00 80
400 00 00 40
397 00 00 40
396 00 08 40
395 00 00 20
392. 00 04 20
00 03 20
390/747
390 00 01 10 389 00 01 50 382 00 03 70 388 00 04 40 384 00 00 60 383 00 06 50 373 00 14 50 374 00 04 50 372 00 00 20 159 00 01 50 158 00 00 20
1346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
2
3 1
154 पूर्बनओपाडा 31
जारी.....
157
94
98
93
12
13
14/766
94/768
7
5
6
14/770
[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ))
4
6
5
01
00
80
10
00
04
70
13
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
03
30
00
00
10
50
00
90
03
20
00
00
50
08
00
10
00
04
50
00
02
80
00
04
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/17/ 2012 - ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013
S.O. 446.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe. )Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya, Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1347
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
SCHEDULE
P.S : DOMJUR DISTRICT : HOWRAH
Nameof the Mouza
SI . No.
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Area
Khasra No.
(R.S.)
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 AMRE - 21 307 00 05 80
301 00 04 30
300 00 00 30
299 00 03 90
2 ANKURHATI - 30 141 00 00 20
142 00 02 90
152 00 00 30
151 00 02 50
150 00 00 70
154 00 02 20
159 00 00 20
146 00 02 70
160 00 01 10
163 00 03 30
162 00 00 30
169 00 02 40
170 00 01 40
173 00 00 20
174 00 01 20
176 00 00 90
177 00 00 20
184 00 00 70
186 00 00 60
185 00 00 40
192 00 01 80
193 00 00 20
194 00 01 80
196 00 01 00
213 00 00 70
212 00 00 20
1348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
ANKURHATI - 30 197
Contd . 198
199
200
202
262
104
36
356
355
324
353
347
348
349
352
350
345
-343
346
341
342
339
351
338
379
336
337
380
381
382
383
388
389
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 50 00 01 20 00 01 90 00 03 40 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 01 20 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 00 70 00 00 40 00 01 50 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 01 60 00 00 90 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 01 10 00 02 20 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 05 20 00 01 90 00 04 50 00 03 40 00 06 60
1349
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1 2 3
ANKURHATI - 30 390
Contd . 391
392
393
443
442
444
470
471
480
481
491
492
490
489
521
519
518
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
516
515
507
567
568
569
570
571
588
537 GI/2013-4
4 5 6 00 01 60 00 01 30 00 02 40 00 02 20 00 01 50 00 02 40 00 08 60 00 07 30 00 05 90 00 01 40 00 03 80 00 07 50 00 02 30 00 01 00 00 00 40 00 01 80 00 02 30 00 08 90 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 30 00 01 60 00 01 50 00 01 30 00 01 80 00 00 20 00 04 70 00 00 90 00 01 60 00 00 30 00 04 40 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 02 50
1350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
ANKURHATI - 30 589
Contd ...... 590
591
585
3 RAGHABPUR - 35 642
741
643
737
736
649
650
2010
651
732
653
652
657
654
655
656
658
709
708
659
706
705
704
678
703
702
679
680
687
688
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
4 5 6 00 00 90 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 50 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 08 30 00 03 00 00 00 20 00 03 90 00 02 00 00 00 80 00 00 20 00 07 40 00 00 20 00 04 50 00 01 00 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 04 50 00 01 00 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 04 00 00 01 60 00 05 10 00 00 40 00 00 60 00 00 20 00 03 00 00 03 20 00 02 90 00 01 10
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1351
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
RAGHABPUR -35 681 00 02 40
Contd.. 686 00 02 70
691 00 00 20
684 00 00 30
685 00 02 60
837 00 01 10
836 00 02 10
835 00 00 50
898 00 00 50
838 00 01 90
840 00 04 20
839 00 00 60
841 00 01 90
842 00 04 70
844 00 00 60
843 00 02 70
848 00 00 30
852 00 02 20
519 00 03 00
479 00 01 10
480 00 01 00
478 00 01 70
476 00 01 30
477 00 00 20
481 00 01 10
475 00 02 60
470 00 00 40
472 00 02 30
471 00 02 20
468 00 01 50
467 00 05 20
466 00 00 20
318 00 05 90
294 00 05 70
1332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3
RAGHABPUR - 35 295
Contd. 293
292
290
289
288
287
285
4 NARNA - 40 3114
3145
3116
3146
3144
3143
3147
3191
3192
3222
3216
3219
3220
3218
3254
3255
3257
3259
3258
3293
3474
3296
3290
3291
3282
3285
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 01 00 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 02 60 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 01 20 00 01 20 00 04 40 00 00 20 00 06 80 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 01 90 00 00 70 00 00 90 00 00 60 00 03 50 00 02 40 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 03 80 00 00 20 00 01 90 00 00 40 00 02 40 00 02 50 00 01 50
1353
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
NARNA - 40 3283 00 03 50
Contd. 3421 00 00 40
3420 00 02 20
3419 00 01 30
3437 00 02 80
3438 00 05 30
3442 00 01 80
3446 00 00 30
3444 00 00 20
3443 00 01 70
3450 00 01 70
3462 00 01 20
3461 00 00 70
3460 00 00 70
3463 00 00 20
3466 00 01 60
3465 00 03 80
3468 00 00 70
3469 00 01 90
3471 00 02 20
3472 00 00 20
3470 00 00 20
3473 00 01 90
4304 00 00 70
4236 00 04 20
4215 00 03 40
4216 00 02 40
4219 00 03 10
4221 00 00 30
4218 00 02 70
4650 00 00 20
4626 00 00 20
4733 00 00 20
4185 00 00 90
1354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
NARNA - 40 4183
Contd . 4184
4182
4642
4643
4646
4645
4639
4636
4635
4690
4628
4627
4625
4698
4699
4700
4701
4703
-4704
4730
4729
4728
4727
4734
4735
4724
4723
4720
4719
4718
5 PURBBA NAOPARA - 31. 436
437
438/763
[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 40 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 03 30 00 00 30 00 02 30 00 04 00 00 01 30 00 04 20 00 00 80 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 00 90 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 02 80 00 01 40 00 01 30 00 03 00 00 01 20 00 00 40 00 02 50 00 00 30 00 01 50 00 00 50 00 00 80 00 02 40 00 03 60 00 00 70 00 03 80 00 07 70 00 05 60 00 03 30
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1355
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
PURBBA NAOPARA - 31 438 00 07 90
Contd... 439 00 06 60
423 00 03 10
415 00 01 00
416 00 01 30
422 00 02 90
417 00 01 60
421 00 01 90
418 00 02 70
420 00 00 50
419 00 03 80
410 00 02 30
409 00 02 40
408 00 01 50
407 00 01 20
403 00 02 90
401 00 00 80
400 00 00 40
397 00 00 40
396 00 08 40
395 00 00 20
392 00 04 20
390/747 00 03 20
390 00 01 10
389 00 01 50
382 00 03 70
388 00 04 40
384 00 00 60
383 00 06 50
373 00 14 50
374 00 04 50
372 00 00 20
159 00 01 50
158 00 00 20
1356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1
2
3
PURBBA NAOPARA - 31
154
Contd .
157
94
98
93
12
13
14/766
94/768
07
05
06
14/770
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
C.
5
6
00
01
80
00
04
10
00
13
70
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
03
30
00
10
50
00
03
90
00
00
20
00
08
50
00
04
10
00
02
50
00
04
80
[ F. No. R-25011 /17/2012 -O.R. - I ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 447.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यकः प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उडीसा) से दुर्गापुर ( पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए :
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग कै अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप - हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावडा -711 302 ( पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
1357
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
अनुसूची
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला : हावड़ा
पुलिस स्टेशन : डोमजुङ
मौजा का नाम कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मी.
हेक्टेयर
खसरा सं.
(एल.आर.)
2
1
1
40
नार्ना
3
4
5
3
20
00
00
1487
40
02
00
1486
60
01
00
1485
(फा. सं. आर. - 25011/17/2012 - ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013
S.O. 447. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto:
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . S.C. Sarkar, W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O.Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal)
537 GI/2013-5 1358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
SCHEDULE
STATE : WEST BENGAL
DISTRICT: HOWRAH
P.S : DOMJUR
Name of the Mouza SI . No.
Area
Hectare Are
Khasra No.
(L.R.)
2
1
1 NARNIA 40
Sq.mtr.
6
5
4
3
20
00
00
1487
40
02
00
1486
60
01
00
1485
[ F. No. R-25011 / 17/2012 -O.R. - I ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली. 20 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 448.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी . सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप - हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया-- बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल गौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
1359
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन: नन्दकुमार
राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: पूर्व मेदिनीपुर
मौजा का नाम
खसरा सं.
कभ सं.
2
3
1
7 1 नाइकुन्डि 117
1
1/865
2
414
420
421
422
429
428
427
434
435
439
459
859
458
820 क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मी.
एयर
6
5
4
60
00
01
50
00
03
20
00
00
00
30
01
00
60
00
00
70
00
00
02
80
00
70
00
70
00
03
70
03
00
00
00
20
03
00
19
00
02
80
02
40
00
01
70
00
90
00
00
00
20
00
03
20
00
50
00
00
820/947
822 00 00 60
825 00 02 40
827 00 01 70
00 00 20
825/946
2 बागमारी 101 53.1 00 02 30
509 00 02 30
514 00 03 60
515 00 01 00
516 00 01 70
517 00 02 60
518 00 00 60
489 00 01 10
490 00 00 20
488 00 04 00
238 00 01 50
487 00 01 10
1360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3
बागमारी 101 239
जारी..... 236
235
229
230/612
230
231
232
232/613
201
198
199
192
191
174
173
171
171/610
177
170
169
168
166
109
103
102
101
55
56
48
57
58
59
47
32
33
23
26
24
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]
4 5 6 00 03 20 00 02 20 00 02 50 00 01 60 00 01 00 00 01 20 00 04 60 00 00 60 00 00 40 00 01 80 00 00 80 00 01 80 00 05 00 00 00 20 00 02 90 00 00 40 00 01 40 00 04 10 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 10 00 02 90 00 00 20 00 00 30 00 04 40 00 01 40 00 01 30 00 02 80 00 02 40 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 01 10 00 00 30 00 03 60 00 02 30 00 00 40 00 05 00 00 00 20 00 01 60
136
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाल II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
बागमारी 101 21 00 03 40
जारी..... 19 00 01 50
18 00 00 20
20 00 01 60
3 कोलसर 33 1015 00 01 70
1018 00 02 40
1019 00 02 20
1017 00 00 60
1024 00 00 30
1023 00 00 20
1025 00 02 20
1028 00 00 40
1027 00 00 90
1030 00 01 30
1031 00 01 40
1034 00 03 50
864 00 01 00
1035 00 02 40
846 00 02 70
847 00 01 70
848 00 00 40
857 00 00 20
858 00 00 30
855 00 07 00
851 00 05 20
850 00 02 30
696 00 04 00
852 00 00 30
698 00 02 50
697 00 04 40
699 00 03 00
694 00 01 80
794 00 07 50
793 00 01 30
791 00 04 60
4 नाड़ादाड़ी 44 1494 00 02 50
1464 00 02 50
1463 00 00 20
1460 00 03 00
1362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23, 2013/ PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART 11-SEC. 3(1)
3
4
5
6 2
1
00
1446
00
90 44
नाड़ादाड़ी
00
01
20
1447
जारी.....
60
00
00
1441
01
00
40
1442
05
30
1433
00
00
01
50
1440
20
00
00
1440/1771
1431 00 02 00
1353 00 00 20
1430 00 02 70
1413 00 00 20
1429 00 01 20
1428 00 01 60
1427 00 02 60
1426 00 00 20
1362 00 00 60
1425 00 02 20
1363 00 00 20
1364 00 01 50
1380 00 03 50
1381 00 00 20
1364/1707 00 00 70
1375 00 00 20
1370 00 00 60
1374 00 01 50
1371 00 01 30
1320 00 00 20
1321 00 00 20
125 2236 00 00 60
5 कल्यानपुर
2237 00 02 80
2235 00 01 00
2233 00 06 00
2239 00 00 70
2240 00 01 10
2177 00 06 60
2180 00 00 60
2179 00 02 70
2178 00 01 90
2173 00 00 70
1363
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ] [भ
3 4 5 6
1 2
2172 00 01 60
कल्यानपुर 125
जारी 2171 00 00 20
2166 00 04 70
2305 00 03 80
00 03 00
2308
2312 00 03 30
00 01 50
2311
2329 00 00 40
00 03 30
2335
00 01 00
2334
2333 00 03 00
00 01 10
2332
2387 00 01 00
2388 00 01 30
2379 00 00 40
2392 00 03 40
2378 00 02 20
2396 00 00 20
2397 00 00 50
2398 00 01 60
2399 00 02 40
00 01 50
2400
2401 00 00 70
00 02 70
2415
2416 00 00 40
2414 00 02 10
2418 00 00 20
2413 00 02 00
2412 00 00 80
2422 00 02 50
2423 00 02 40
1440 00 00 30
1439 00 01 50
1438 00 04 90
1442 00 00 20
1498 00 02 70
1499 00 01 60
1432 00 00 50 1
1431 00 04 40
1364
PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
2 3 4 5 6
1
125 1430 00 00 20
कल्यानपुर
जारी..... 1505 00 00 60
1506 00 02 10
1508 00 00 50
1510 00 00 20
1514 00 01 20
1513 00 00 70
1512 00 00 60
1511 00 02 40
1544 00 02 80
1545 00 00 70
1547 00 02 00
1549 00 00 20
1546 00 01 90
1548 00 02 90
1563 00 08 50
1695 00 00 60
1562 00 00 90
1564 00 00 80
1565 00 05 80
1574 00 03 00
1382 00 01 40
684 00 00 20
685 00 01 00
683 00 04 60
691 00 05 90
671 00 04 10
670 00 01 10
524 00 01 70
525 00 01 40
523 00 03 30
526 00 00 90
527 00 01 10
530 00 01 60
531 00 00 80
532 00 01 90
535 00 00 20
533 00 01 70
534 00 03 00
[ भाग II ----खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1365
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1
2
3
536 कल्यानपुर 125
जारी....
420
421
422
419
396
397
417
415
416
202
6 माधवपुर 122
4
5
6
00
02
60
03
50
00
05
00
40
00
00
40
00
03
10
01
00
90
00
00
30
00
02
50
00
02
20
00
04
60
00
80
02
03
00
90
203/3082
213 00 00 20
214 00 00 20
215 00 00 20
216 00 00 20
220 00 04 40
210 00 03 60
221 00 03 70
00 01 00
223/3094
223 00 00 30
222 00 03 30
249 00 01 90
248 00 02 70
250 00 06 70
257 00 06 50
244 00 00 30
300 00 03 00
301 00 04 00
302 00 04 30
373 00 00 40
238 00 00 20
309 00 01 80
306 00 01 00
308 00 00 30
307 00 01 20
00 02 50
307/3067
339 340
537 G1/2013-6
00 02 10 00 02 70
1366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
2
3 1
122
342
माधवपुर
जारी.....
341
372
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]
4
5
6
00
03
40
00
00
40
00
00
40
00
01
80
374/3095
374 00 02 40
375 00 01 40
00 01 60
375/3096
378 00 03 60
376 00 01 80
377 00 00 90
379 00 09 80
382 00 05 20
385 00 03 10
7 सन्दलपुर 121 1018 00 04 10
1019 00 02 40
1024 00 02 20
1020 00 00 20
1023 00 04 50
1022 00 00 40
1055 00 01 80
1057 00 03 70
1056 00 00 50
1063 00 03 80
1062 00 01 10
1064 00 05 70
1066 00 01 60
1067 00 01 20
1068 00 00 20
1069 00 03 00
1227 00 00 20
1228 00 08 10
1229 00 01 00
1230 00 00 20
1232 00 03 00
1235 00 07 70
1237 00 02 60
1238 00 01 80
1239 00 02 30
1297 00 01 90
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1367
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4, 1934
1 2 3
4 5 6
सन्दलपुर 121 1296 00 01 90
जारी..... 1300 00 04 60
130 00 04 90
1309 00 00 80
1310 00 00 90
1859 00 00 50
1447 00 00 70
1448 00 01 20
1449 00 03 70
1437 00 03 40
1435 00 03 00
1427 00 02 20
1428 00 00 50
1426 00 01 20
1422 00 02 00
1701 00 00 90
1700 00 00 90
1699 00 00 90
1474 00 01 00
1475 00 01 00
1418 00 00 30
1417 00 09 10
141 00 04 60
1408 00 04 70
1409 00 00 60
1407 00 03 20
1697 00 06 60
1698 00 01 50
1703 00 00 60
1704 00 00 60
1705 00 00 60
1828 00 07 50
1823 00 03 10
1822 00 08 50
1833 00 00 20
1834 00 00 20
1837 00 07 50
1842 00 01 10
1850 00 01 00
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1368
4 5 6
2 3
1
1849 00 02 00
सन्दलपुर 121
1848 00 00 70
जारी.....
1854 00 01 30
1855 00 00 70
1847 00 02 00
1857 00 00 70
00 04 10
४ भवानीपुर 73 2269
2271 00 02 60
1833 00 00 30
1832 00 00 40
1834 00 08 80
1842 00 00 60
1837 00 00 80
1836 00 02 80
1838 00 03 60
1839 00 00 70
1804 00 07 10
1815 00 03 70
1806 00 10 70
1805 00 00 80
1808 00 04 00
1807 00 00 50
1809 00 03 80
1811 00 10 40
1814 00 08 90
1816 00 04 60
1824 00 02 20
1825 00 02 00
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/24/2012- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव [ भाग ।।-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1369
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013
S.O. 448. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha ) to Durgapur ( West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said repeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe. ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal ) 1370
PART --SEC . 3( 11) ]
SCHEDULE
STATE WEST BENGAL
NANDAKUMAR DISTRICT : PURBA MEDINIPUR
PS :
SI .
Name of the Mouza Khasra No.
No.
1 2 3
1 NAIKUNDI - 117 7
1
1/865
2
414
420
421
422
429
428
427
434
435
439
459
859
458
820
820/947
822
825
827
825/946
2 BAGMARI - 101 531
509
514
515
516
517
518
489
490
488
238
487
Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4 5 6 00 01 60 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 01 30 00 00 60 00 00 70 00 02 80 00 00 70 00 03 70 00 03 70 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 02 80 00 02 40 00 01 70 00 00 90 00 00 20 00 03 20 00 00 50 00 00 60 00 02 40 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 02 30 00 02 30 00 03 60 00 01 00 00 01 70 00 02 60 00 00 60 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 04 00 00 01 50 00 01 10
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1371
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2
3 4 5 6
BAGMARI - 101 239 00 03
20
Contd ..... 236 00 02 20
235 00 02 50
229 00 01 60
230/612 00 01 00
230 00 01 20
231 00 04 60
232 00 00 60
232/613 00 00 40
201 00 01 80
198 00 00 80
199 00 01 80
192 00 05 00
191 00 00 20
174 00 02 90
173 00 00 40
171 00 01 40
171/610 00 04 10
177 00 00 20
170 00 01 60
169 00 01 10
168 00 02 90
166 00 00 20
109 00 00 30
103 00 04 40
102 00 01 40
101 00 01 30
55 00 02 80
56 00 02 40
48 00 00 20
57 00 02 00
58 00 01 10
59 00 00 30
47 00 03 60
32 00 02 30
33 00 00 40
23 00 05 00
26 00 00 20
24 00 01 60
[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1372
4 5 6
2 3
1
00 03 40
21
BAGMARI - 101
00 01 50
19
Contd..
00 00 20
18
00 01 60
20
00 01 70
KOLSAR - 88 1015
3
00 02 40
1018
00 02 20
1019
00 00 60
1017
00 00 30
1024
00 00 20
1023
00 02 20
1025
00 00 40
1028
00 00 90
1027
00 01 30
1030
00 01 40
1031
00 03 50
1034
00 01 00
864
00 02 40
1035
00 02 70
846
00 01 70
847
00 00 40
848
00 00 20
857
00 00 30
858
855 00 07 00
00 05 20
851
00 02 30
850
00 04 00
696
00 00 30
852
00 02 50
698
00 04 40
697
00 03 00
699
00 01 80
694
00 07 50
794
00 01 30
793
00 04 60
791
00 02 50
1494
4 NARADARI - 44
00 02 50
1464
00 00 20
1463
00 03 00
1460
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1373
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/ फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3
NARADARI -44 1446
Contd... 1447
1441
1442
1433
1440
1440/1771
1431
1353
1430
1413
1429
1428
1427
1426
1362
1425
1363
1364
1380
1381
1364/1707
1375
1370
1374
1371
1320
1321
5 KALYANPUR - 125 2236
2237
2235
2233
2239
2240
2177
2180
2179
2178
2173
537 GI/2013-7
4 5 6 00 00 90 00 01 20 00 00 60 00 01 40 00 05 30 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 01 20 00 01 60 00 02 60 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 01 50 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 01 50 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 02 80 00 01 00 00 06 00 00 00 70 00 01 10 00 06 60 00 00 60 00 . 02. 70 00 01 90 00 00 70
[PART 11---SEC . 3 ( ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1374
3 4 5 6
1 2
2172 00 01 60
KALYANPUR - 125
2171 00 00 20
Contd
2166 00 04 70
2305 00 03 80
2308 00 03 00
2312 00 03 30
2311 00 01 50
2329 00 00 40
2335 00 03 30
2334 00 11 00
2333 00 03 00
2332 00 01 10
2387 00 01 00
2388 00 01 30
2379 00 00 40
2392 00 03 40
2378 00 02 20
2396 00 00 20
2397 00 00 50
2398 00 01 60
2399 00 02 40
2400 00 01 50
2401 00 00 70
2415 00 02 70
2416 00 00 40
2414 00 02 10
2418 00 00 20
2413 00 02 00
2412 00 00 80
2422. 00 02 50
2423 00 02 40
1440 00 00 30
1439 00 01 50
1438 00 04 90
1442 00 00 20
1498 00 02 70
1499 00 01 60
1432 00 00 50
1431 00 04 40
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1375
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
KALYANPUR - 125 1430 00 00 20
Contd 1505 00 00 60
1506 00 02 10
1608 00 00 50
1510 00 00 20
1514 00 01 20
1513 00 00 70
1512 00 00 60
1511 00 02 40
1544 00 02 30
1545 00 30 70
1547 00 02 00
1549 00 00 20
1546 00 01 90
1548 00 02 90
1563 00 08
1695 00 00 20
1562 00 00
564 00 00
1565 00 05 00
1574 00 03 00
1382 00 01 40
684 00 00 20
685 00 01 00
683 00 04 60
691 00 05 90
671 00 04 10
670 00 01 10
524 00 01 70
525 00 01 40
523 00 03 30
526 00 00 90
527 00 01 10
530 00 01 60
531 00 00 80
532 00 01 90
535 00 00 20
533 00 01 70
534 00 03
[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1376
1 2 3 4 5 6
KALYANPUR -125 536 00 02 60
Contd.. 420 00 03 50
421 00 05 40
422 00 00 40
419 00 03 10
396 00 01 90
397 00 00 30
417 00 02 50
415 00 02 20
416 00 04 60
6 MADHABPUR - 122 202 00 02 80
203/3082 00 03 90
213 00 00 20
214 00 00 20
00 00 20
215
216 00 00 20
220 00 04 40
210 00 03 60
00 03 70
221
223/3094 00 01 00
223 00 00 30
222 00 03 30
249 00 01 90
248 00 02 70
250 00 06 70
257 00 06 50
244 00 00 30
300 00 03 00
301 00 04 00
302 00 04 30
373 00 00 40
238 00 00 20
309 00 01 80
306 00 01 00
00 00 30
308
307 00 01 20
307/3067 00 02 50
339 00 02 10
00 02 70
340
1377
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
3
2
1
342 MADHABPUR - 122
341 Contd..
372
6
4
5
40
03
00
00
40
00
00
40
00
80
01
00
374/3095
00 02 40
374
00 01 40
375
00 01 60
375/3096
00 03 60
378
00 01 80
376
00 00 90
377
00 09 80
379
00 05 20
382
00 03 10
385
00 04 10
7 SANDALPUR - 121 1018
00 02 40
1019
00 02 20
1024
00 00 20
1020
00 04 50
1023
00 00 40
1022
00 01 80
1055
00 03 70
1057
00 00 50
1056
00 03 80
1063
00 01 10
1062
00 05 70
1064
00 01 60
1066
00 01 20
1067
00 00 20
1068
00 03 00
1069
00 00 20
1227
00 08 10
1228
00 01 00
1229
00 00 20
1230
00 03 00
1232
00 07 70
1235
00 02 60
1237
00 01 80
1238
00 02 30
1239
00 01 90
1297
1378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
SANDALPUR - 121 1296
Contd. 1300
1301
1309
1310
1859
1447
1448
1449
1437
1435
1427
1428
1426
1422
1701
1700
1699
1474
1475
1418
1417
1412
1408
1409
1407
1697
1698
1703
1704
1705
1828
1823
1822
1833
1834
1837
1842
1850
[PART II---SEC . 3( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 01 90 00 04 60 00 04 90 00 00 80 00 00 90 00 00 50 00 00 70 00 01 20 00 03 70 00 03 40 00 03 00 00 02 20 00 00 50 00 01 20 00 02 00 00 00 90 00 00 90 00 00 90 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 09 10 00 04 60 00 04 70 00 00 60 00 03 20 00 06 60 00 01 50 00 00 60 00 00 60 00 00 60 00 07 50 00 03 10 00 08 50 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 07 50 00 01 10 00 01 00
[भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1379
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
SANDALPUR - 121 1849 00 02 00
Contd. 1848 00 00 70
1854 00 01 30
1855 00 00 70
1847 00 02 00
1857 00 00 70
8 BHABANIPUR - 73 2269 00 04 10
2271 00 02 60
1833 00 00 30
1832 00 00 40
1834 00 08 80
1842 00 00 60
1837 00 00 80
1836 00 02 80
1838 00 03 60
1839 00 00 70
1804 00 07 10
1815 00 03 70
1806 00 10 70
1805 00 00 80
1808 00 04 00
1807 00 00 50
1809 00 03 80
1811 00 10 40
1814 00 08 90
1816 00 04 60
1824 00 02 20
1825 00 02 00
[ F. No. R -25011/ 24/2012 -O.R. -I ]
PAWAN KUMAR , Under Secy.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 1380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 449. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप(उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है . इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल ) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
1381
भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन: नन्दकुमार
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: पूर्व मेदिनीपुर
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 माधवपुर 122 2296 00 04 40
2297 00 02 00
2295 00 00 90
2299 00 02 00
2307 00 06 30
2311 00 04 80
2310 00 00 20
2327 00 01 40
2325 00 00 20
2326 00 04 60
00 06 20
2328/3066
2329 00 03 30
2284 00 04 50
2285 00 01 60
2278 00 04. 30
2277 00 01 50
2279 00 00 30
2276 00 01 80
2275 00 02 40
2280 00 00 20
3188 00 01 70
2272 00 00 30
2273 00 01 10
2274 00 03 10
1247 00 04 60
1246 00 00 40
1245 00 01 60
00 00 20
1243/3079
1243 1242
537 G1/2013-8
00 01 00 00 02 40
1382
[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
3 4 5 6
2
1241 00 00 20
माधवपुर 199
जारी 2255 00 02 20
1271 00 01 30
1270 00 00 20
1272 00 00 20
1174 00 00 20
1275 00 02 10
1274 00 02 30
1278 00 06 90
1286 00 02 00
1285 00 03 20
3178 00 01 60
1224 00 04 70
1220 00 00 20
1221 00 01 80
1222 00 01 70
1214 00 02 10
1212 00 02 20
1207 00 00 20
1206 00 01 90
1205 00 01 70
1204 00 00 20
1203 00 04 70
1202 00 04 70
1188 00 02 10
1187 00 00 80
1186 00 01 20
1185 00 02 30
00 01 80
1213/3073
1176 00 02 80
1175 00 04 40
1171 00 00 80
1170 00 05 90
1335 00 00 80
2 कुमरंआड़ा 118
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1383
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
3
2
1
1286
118
कुमरआड़ा
1334
जारी.....
1330
1332
1333
1331
1363
6
5
4
10
00
03
00
03
80
80
00
01
00
00
01
00
20
00
40
00
01
10
00
02
02
80
00
1363/2061
1324 00 00
1311 00 03 80
1313 00 00 20
1312 00 00 90
1310 00 01 90
1302 00 01 30
1301 00 00 50
1303 00 01 70
1304 00
1297 00 02 90
1296 00 06 40
1294 00 01 70
1295 00 03 90
00 02 20
1288/729
1384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934 [PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii )]
3 4 5 6
1 2
999 00 09 00
कुमरआड़ा 118
00 01 50
जारी.... 995
996 00 00 20
1032 00 04 80
00 05 20
1033
1035 00 00 20
1034 00 04 80
1038/1919 00 00 40
1038 00 01 30
1039 00 00 40
1070 00 01 20
1050 00 02 70
1049 00 00 20
1048 00 02 30
1047 00 00 60
1046 00 00 20
1052 00 01 10
1054 00 03 40
1055 00 03 50
878/2159 00 01 10
878 00 00 30
864 00 01 90
1293 00 00 20
865 00 01 40
1292 00 00 20
863 00 01 50
1290 00 02 50
862 00 00 80
1289 00 01 40
861 00 01 30
1287 00 40
866 00 00 20
1288 00 00 20
848 00 04 60
1285 00 00 20
847 00 03 50
1284 00 00 30
214 00 00 20
3 धिताइबशान 100
926 00 00 40
210 00 05 40
969 00 10
212 00 01 10
968 00 01 10
211 00 02 80
973 00 03 00
242 00 00 40
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1385
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1 3 4 5 6
2
243 00 03 00
धिताइबशान 100
204 00 02 40
जारी....
00 01 00
203
00 00 20
244
245 00 01 30
200 00 03 30
198 00 00 50
199 00 02 00
181 00 09 60
1401 00 05 50
4 मान्दारगेछ्या 90
1402 00 00 20
1392 00 00 20
1393 00 02 20
1394 00 02 10
1388 00 00 90
1395 00 00 20
1382 00 01 60
1383 00 01 50
1337 00 01 40
1245 00 03 50
1246 00 01 40
1244 00 02 90
1240 00 04 30
1241 00 01 90
1239 00 03 80
1236 00 01 30
1237 00 01 80
1235 00 00 80
1231 00 01 30
1233 00 00 80
1154 00 03 70
1155 00 00 20
790 00 00 70
5 जम्बरबशान 87
791 00 00 20
[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1386
1
2
3
87
789
जम्बुरबशान जारी......
788
787
786
778
779
777
775
774 4
5
6
00
00
20
00
01
00
00
01
00
00
00
20
20
00
02
60
00
00
00
30
01
00
00
50
50
00
00
03
00
80
774/1406
743 00 02 00
742 00 01 10
741 00 01 30
740 00 02 30
749 00 00 70
00 00 20
739/1398
737 00 05 70
736 00 02 10
735 00 00 30
726 00 01 20
771 00 00 20
727 00 04 00
725 00 00 20
728 00 00 20
729 00 00 20
721 00 00 20
722 00 02 50
723 00 00 20
6 दक्षिण श्रीकृष्णपुर 59 881 00 00 70
882 00 00 20
879 00 05 30
886 00 00 60
878 00 04 30
890 00 01 00
1387
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2 3 4 5 6
1
59 891 00 02 20
दक्षिण श्रीकृष्णपुर
जारी 892 00 01 90
857 00 00 30
904 00 03 90
845 00 00 20
843 00 00 20
842 00 01 40
841 00 02 40
840 00 01 30
839 00 02 30
833 00 01 80
834 00 01 50
835 00 00 40
837 00 00 50
836 00 02 90
921 00 02 30
794 00 00 30
793 00 01 90
792 00 05 40
788 00 02 20
787 00 02 30
786 00 02 00
513 00 03 90
506 00 00 20
507 00 03 70
505 00 02 80
129 00 02 80
130 00, 02 70
134 00 03 00
133 00 02 60
136 00 02 50
132 00 03 10
131 00 00 70
140 00 01 60
1388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
2
3 1
115 दक्षिण श्रीकृष्णपुर 59
जारी.....
114
40
41
42
43
48
4
8
6
2191
7 पुयेदा 35
2190
2187
2188
[ PART 11 SEC . 3 (ii )]
4
5
6
00
11
60
00
70
00
00
02
40
01
80
00
04
20
00
00
60
04
01
60
00
00
04
00
60
00
00
01
00
10
00
01
20
00
00
90
00
04
70
00
02
10
01
40
00
2187/2236
2184 00 00 90 2186 00 01 30 2185 00 00 80 2183 00 01 00 2177 00 01 00 2176 00 01 10 2171 00 01 50 2170 00 01 90 2167 00 08 90 2155 00 03 10 2153 00 01 90 2151 00 00 20 2152 00 02 70 2146 00 02 40 2147 00 02 60 2136 00 03 20 2137 00 00 40 2133 00 03 60 2131 00 04 40
1389
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[ भाग II --- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
2128 00 02 20
पुयेदा 35
जारी..... 2125 00 02 40
2114 00 01 70
2113 00 01 10
2111 00 00 30
2063 00 01 30
2126 00 01 20
2112 00 00 40
229 00 00 20
8 टीकारामपुर 52
227 00 10 60
167 00 00 20
168 00 02 30
225 00 01 40
222 00 00 20
169 00 08 00
00 00 20
170/1492
171 00 02 80
00 03 10
174/1495
174 00 02 60
173 00 00 60
00 01 40
174/1494
20
00
00
176/1497
176 00 01 70
00 01 70
176/1498
20
00
00
176/1499
177
103
102
99
98
9 तारागेड़े 51 507
506
484
485
537 G1/2013-9
00 03 90 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 00 60 00 01 00 00 00 90 00 00 80 00 00 40 00 03 80
1390
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
3
2
1
6
5
4
20
02
00
488/527
तारागेड़े 51
487 00 01 20
जारी.....
00 01 20
488
00 02 20
497
00 05 10
498
00 00 20
500
499 00 03 40
00 01 50
428
00 03 80
425
00 04 00
426
00 01 10
419
00 04 00
407
00 01 30
417
408 00 01 70
00 02 10
410
411 00 01 40
00 01 10
412
401 00 03 20
00 02 00
317
318 00 01 90
319 00 01 10
00 00 20
326
325 00 02 90
320 00 00 20
322 00 02 70
00 01 10
323
00 00 60
299
298 00 00 20
297 00 00 40
279 00 00 50
280 00 02 80
281 00 00 20
282 00 00 30
295 00 02 60
00 00 40
283
00 00 30
285
284 00 01 80
286 00 01 60
[ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1391
भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1
3
2
51
269 तारागेडे
268 जारी.....
267
235
236
241 4
5
6
01
70
00
00
03
00
10
00
03
00
00
30
40
00
05
00
00
20
00
20
00
241/509
240 00 04 06
239 00 00 40
201 00 00 50
73 00 04 70
36 00 00 40
71 00 05 70
37 00 03 60
70 00 00 20
61 00 04 10
66 00 OG 80
62 00 01 80
63 00 00 20
64 00 00 70
58 00 00 20
961 00 00 40
10 शितलपुर 71 2693 00 01 30
2722 00 0100
2696 00 00 20
2695 00 10 50
00 00 20
2694/3885
2694
50
00
01
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/24/2012- ओ.आर.- 1 ]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव [PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1392
New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013
S.O. 449.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto:
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writingto the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe. ) Retd. Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal ) 1393
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
SCHEDULE
STATE : WEST BENGAL
DISTRICT : PURBA MEDINIPUR
PS : NANDAKUMAR
Nameof the Mouza
Area
Hectare
Khasra No.
(R.S)
SI .
No. Are Sq.mtr.
3 4 5 6
1 2
2296 00 04 40
1 MADHABPUR - 122
2297 00 02 00
2295 00 00 90
2299 00 02 00
2307 00 06 30
2311 00 04 80
2310 00 00 20
2327 00 01 40
2325 00 00 20
2326 00 04 60
2328/3066 00 06 20
2329 00 03 30
2284 00 04 50
2285 00 01 60
2278 00 04 30
2277 00 01 50
2279 00 00 30
2276 00 01 80
2275 00 02 40
2280 00 00 20
3188 00 01 70
2272 00 00 30
2273 00 01 10
2274 00 03 10
1247 00 04 60
1246 00 00 40
1245 00 01 60
00 00 20
1243/3079
1243 00 01 00 1242 00 02 40
1994
[ PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii)]
1 2
3 4
5 6
MADHABPUR -122 1241
00 00 20
Contd...
2255 00 02
20
1271 00 01
30
1270 00
00 20
1272 00 00
20
1174 00 00
20
1275 00 02
10
1274 00 02
30
1278 00 06
90
1286 00 02
00
1285 00 03 20
3178 00 01
60
1224 00
04 70
1220 00 00
20
1221 00 01
80
1222 00 01
70
1214 00 02
10
1212 00 02
20
1207 00 00 .
20
1206 00 01
90
1205 00 01
70
1204 00 00 20
1203 00 04 70
1202 00
04 70
1188 00 02
10
1187 00 00
80
1186 00 01
20
1185 00 02
30
1213/3073
00 01 80
1176 00 02
80
1175 00
04 40
1171 00
00 80
1170 CO
05 90
2 KUMARARA - 118 1335
00 00 80
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1395
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1
2
3
KUMARARA - 118
1286
Contd.
1334
1330
1332
1333
1331
1363 4
5
6
00
03
10
00
03
80
00
01
80
00
01
00
00
00
20
00
01
40
00
02
10
1363/2061
00 02 80
1324 00 00 30
1311 00 03 80
1313 00 00 20
1312 00 00 90
1310 00 01 90
1302 00 01 30
1301 00 00 50
1303 00 01 70
1304 00 01 60
1297 00 02 90
1296 00 06 40
1294 00 01 70
1295 00 03 90
1288/729 00 02 20
1293 00 00 20
1292 00 00 20
1290 00 02 50
1289 00 01 40
1287 00 08 40
1288 00 00 20
1285 00 00 20
1284 00 00 30
926 00 00 40
969 00 01 10
968 00 01 10
973 00 03 00
[PART II-- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1396
3
2
1
999 KUMARARA - 118
995
Contd...
996
1032
1033
1035
1034
6
4
5
00
09
00
50
00
01
20
00
00
80
00
04
20
05
00
20
00
00
04
80
00
40
00
00
1038/1919
1038 00 01 30
00 00 40
1039
1070 00 01 20
1050 00 02 70
1049 00 00 20
1048 00 02 30
00 00 60
1047
1046 00 00 20
1052 00 01 10
1054 00 03 40
1055 00 03 50
00 01 10
878/2159
878 00 00 30
864 00 01 90
865 00 01 40
863 00 01 50
862 00 00 80
861 00 01 30
866 00 00 20
848 00 04 60
847 00 03 50
214 00 00 20
3 DHITAIBASHAN - 100
210 00 05 40
212 00 01 10
211 00 02 80
242 00 00 40
गड़ 3 (ii) ]
ron
8ρει 1397
THECUTELEPEK
a
DHITAIBASHAN 100
00
OS
00 Contd.
885
00
10
00
00
185 00
OS
00
00
00
50
05
08
00
00
етт
١٢٣
00
30
10
00
00
00
00
20
00 4 MANDARGECHHYA - 90
00
08
SO
00
05
00
EAT
SAT
00
10
00
30
OAT
00
05
30
00
00
00
00
OS
00
20
131
00
03
00
00
132
00
OS
10
00
00
১০
00
353
asy 00
00
50
00
00
00
00
150
00
১৬
00
SST 50
00
EST
00
00
188 00
00
10
00
00
885
00
30
09
00
388 en
00
5 JAMBURBASHAN - 87
00
878
800
00
09
537 GI /2013-10
5
76
00
243
00
00
40 204
02 btno
00
203
01
00
20 244
00
00
01
30
00
245
03
200
00
30
00
00
50 198
00
00
02
199
60
00
09
181
1401
00
05
50
20 1402
00
00
00
00
20 1392
00
02
20 1393
02
10
00
1394
00
00
90 1388
00
1395
00
20
60
00
01
1382
01
50 1383
00
01
40
00
1337
00
03
50 1245
01
40
00
1246
00
02
90 1244
30
00
04
1240
00
01
90 1241
00
03
80 1239
00
01
30 1236
00
01
80 1237
00
80
1235
00
30
e D
00
00
80 1233
03
70
00
1154
20
00
1155
00
70
00
00
790
20
00
00
791 1398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
JAMBURBASHAN - 87 789
Contd... 788
787
786
778
779
777
775
774
774/1406
743
742
741
740
749
739/1398
737
736
735
726
771
727
725
728
729
721
722
723
6 DAKSHIN SRIKRISNAPUR - 59 881
882
879
886
878
890
[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 00 60 00 01 30 00 00 50 00 00 50 00 03 80 00 02 00 00 01 10 00 01 30 00 02 30 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 05 70 00 02 10 00 00 30 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 04 00 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 50 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 05 30 00 00 60 00 04 30 00 01 00
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1399
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUARY 25 283 PHALCUNA 4, 1934
1 1 2 3
a 2 24 4 5 6
DAKSHIN SRIKRISNAPUR - 59 DAKSHIN SRIKRISNAPUR - 59 891 00 02 20
Contd Contd 00
892 00 01 90
30 00 00 857 00 00 30
ое 03 00 904 00 03 90
50 00 00 845 00 00 20
OS 00 00 843 00 00 20
40 10 00 842 00 01 40
SO 00 841 00 02 40
30 00 840 00 01 30
30 SO 00 839 00 02 30
7 POBYEDA - 35 00 833 00 01 80
20 10 00 834 00 01 50
835 00 00 40
837 00 00 50
836 00 02 90
921 00 02 30
794 00 00 30
793 00 01 90
792 00 05 40
788 00 02 20
787 00 02 30
786 00 02 00
513 00 03 90
506 00 00 20
507 00 03 70
505 00 02 80
129 00 02 80
130 00 02 70
134 00 03 00
133 00 02 60
136 00 02 50
132 00 03 10
131 00 00 70
140 00 01 60
00
[PART 11 SEC.3 ( ii )
3 3 4 5 6
115 га овканисаклгираль
Bas 114 00 00 bing
40 00 02 40
804 41 00 01 80
248 42 00 04 20
43 00 04 60
SA8 48 00 01 60
148 4 00 04 00
048 8 00 00 60
830 6 00 01 10
εε8 2191 00 01 20
428 2190 00 00 90
288 2187
00
40
00
00
20
00
00
04
70
٢٤8 2188
00
02
10
00
882187/2236
SO
20
00
01
40
rse 2184
05
30
00
00
30
00
00
90
ACT 2186
00
01
30
٤٥٢ 2185
00 00
OA 20 00
50 SO 00
30 SO 00
00 SO 00
03 00
OS 00 00
٥٢ 03 00
00
00 00 80
SET 2183 00 01 00
885 2177 00 01 00
٢٥٢ 2176 00 01 10
285 2171 00 01 50
Era 2170 00 01 90
202 2167 00 08 90
502 2155 00 03 10
202 2153
08
05
00
SO
00
01
90
00
est 2151
08
00
05
00
00
03
00
20
08 2152
02
70
00
ΑΕΙ 2146
00
02
40
εε 2147
SO 00 00 02 60
२० SO 00 ΘεΓ 2136 00 03 20
03 00 SE 2137 00 00 40
00 00 ΓεΓ 2133 00 03 60
00 0A 2131 00 04 40
THEOVSELLEOFINDIVLEBKOVKAS3′301ЗЛЬНУГОЛИУ1934
[भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1401
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन-4, 1934--
A
a
1
22
00
59
POYEDA-
00
10
Contd.
00
10
OS
OS
05
00
20
00
00
00
OS
3
3
4
2128
00
02
b00
6 6 IVBVCEBE
2125
00
02
40
884
2114
01
00
70
2113
01
00
10
804
00
00
30 2111
002
00
01
eep 2063
03
00
40
00
GJ
२०
00
08
03
30
85 2126
00
01
20
25 2112
8 TIRARAMPUR - 52 00
10
00
10
00
00
04
10
00
30
00
05
10
00
00
40
ƏSA
229
00
00
20
era
227
00
10
60
TOP
167
00
00
20
168
02
30
00
804
00
01
40
Огр 225
00
SO
00
10
40
10
00
00
OS
03
222
00
20
00
00
STA 169
08
00
00
10M70/1492
00
SO
00
00
00
00
20
171
٢٢٤
00
02
80
8174/1495
00
00
00
SO
00
SO
се
00
03
10
ere
174
00
02
60
3se
173
00
00
60
352
00
01
40
05174/1494
00
00
00
20
00
$ ε176/1497
00
10
05
10
00
10
00
00
00
01
70 176
εςε
00
276/1498
00
00
00
01
70
80976/1499
00
00
00
00
20
00
SO
08
00
00
50
00
00
30
00
SO
08
9 TARAGERE 51
00
00
00
30
00
10
08
00
08
00
00
20
ses 177
00
03
90
ers
103
00
00
20
08
102
00
00
40
185
99
00
00
60
585
98
00
01
00
507
00
00
90
583
00
00
80
285 506
485 484
00
00
40
28S 485
00
03
80 1402
PART II SEC. 3 ( 1) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
TARAGERE - 51 488/527 00 02 20
Contd 487 00 01 20
488 00 01 20
497 00 02 20
498 00 05 10
500 00 00 20
499 00 03 40
428 00 01 50
425 00 03 80
426 00 04 00
419 00 01 10
407 00 04 00
417 00 01 30
408 00 01 70
410 00 02 10
411 00 01 40
412 00 01 10
401 00 03 20
317 00 02 00
318 00 01 90
319 00 01 10
326 00 00 20
325 00 02 90
320 00 00 20
322 00 02 70
323 00 01 10
299 00 00 60
298 00 00 20
297 00 00 40
279 00 00 50
280 00 02 80
281 00 00 20
282 00 00 30
295 00 02 60
283 00 00 40
285 00 00 30
284 00 01 80
286 00 01 60
[ भाग II -खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
1403
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
TARAGERE - 51 269 00 01 70
Contd ... 268 00 03 00
267 00 03 10
235 00 00 30
236 00 05 40
241 00 00 20
241/509 00 00 20
240 00 04 90
239 00 00 40
201 00 00 50
73 00 04 70
36 00 00 40
71 00 05 70
37 00 03 60
70 00 00 20
61 00 04 10
66 00 00 80
62 00 01 80
63 00 00 20
64 00 00 70
58 00 00 20
961 00 00 40
10 SHITALPUR - 71 2693 00 01 30
2722 00 01 00
2696 00 20
2695 00 10 50
2694/3885 00 00 20
2694 00 01 50
[ F. No. R-25011 /24/2012-O.R. - I ] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
1404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23, 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
PART ISC . 3 ( 1) ]
नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2013
A
S
ε
ЗАЯАТ
eas
CO-
00 का.आ. 450.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम ce बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उडीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
60
00
σες
30 00 और केन्द्रीय सरकारएको ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होती है कि ऐसी भूमि औं इस से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ; 00
00
0%
00 00 10 00 105अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है; τε
00 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्तसे युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी . एस . (प्रशासनिक ) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीफ हल्दिया -४ दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया-- बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, घर दुईल्या , आन्दुल मौरी, मौरीग्राम हावड़ा -711 302 (पश्चिम - ЯИЧЦАTI12 01
बगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेपेज सकेगा ।
00
00
aeas
30 00
01
00
00
00
00
00
10 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
1405
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन: तमलुक
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला : पूर्व मेदिनीपुर
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
1
2
3
1
धरिन्दा 279
1870
1871
1866
1867
1865
1864
1863
1862
1175
1176 एयर वर्ग मी.
हेक्टेयर
6
4
5
00
50
00
03 40
00
02
82
00
70
00
00
01
40
00
01
10
00
01
40
00
20
00
90
00
00
00
20
03
00
00
30
1178/1960
1178 1179 1255 1254 1191 1252 1251 1250 1196 1197 1198 1199 1245 1244 1246 1247 1248 1269 1270
537 GI /2013-11
00 02 00 00 01 70 00 03 40 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 00 70 00 01 70 00 CO 20 00 02 60 00 00 70 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 01 40 00 01 70 00 01 70 00 01 50 00 02 30
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1406
4 5 6
2 3
1
00 03 20
धरिन्दा 1274
279
00 01 60
जारी. 1275
00 00 20
1273
00 03 70
1284
00 00 20
1285
00 00 50
1291
00 01 20
1292
00 00 20
1298
00 01 30
1293
00 02 10
1295
00 03 30
1296
00 01 90
1317
00 00 30
1318
00 00 20
1319
00 01 00
1320
00 00 80
1321
00 01 20
1051
1050 00 00 80
1049 00 01 30
00 00 50
1038
00 03 10
970
00 00 90
971
00 03 50
972
00 03 80
967
00 01 50
983
00 00 50
984
00 OC 20
985
00 08 10
827
00 03 20
828
00 00 60
825
00 01 20
824
00 01 30
823
00 01 60
822
832 00 00 40
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1407
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
धरिन्दा 279 (जारी....) 821 00 00 50
2 276 266 00 00 20
डहरपुर
265 00 01 10
264 00 00 90
249 00 02 90
248 00 00 70
252 00 01 70
261 00 00 80
253 00 00 20
254 00 00 80
257 00 03 30
255 00 01 80
256 00 02 10
171 00 04 60
168 00 00 80
169 00 01 60
170 00 00 90
00 04 50
78/522
78 00 04 10
88 00 00 20
87 00 06 50
84 00 01 80.
85 00 00 20
83 00 06 90
82 00 04 50
32 00 01 60
33 00 01 10
31 00 01 60
2 00 00 503
1 00 01 30
3 144 624 00 01 80
पदुमबसान
00 01 20
623/2408
623 00 00 90 613 00 01 80
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1408
3 4 5 6
1 2
612 00 05 10
पदुमबसान 144
611 00 04 90
जारी....
608 00 00 20
580 00 04 40
579 00 02 90
581 00 00 20
584 00 00 20
585 00 00 20
586 00 06 40
587 00 00 20
588 00 01 70
589 00 00 20
576 00 03 70
568 00 04 90
569 00 01 00
546 00 02 00
567 00 00 20
547 00 01 60
545 00 11 10
548 00 00 20
549 00 00 20
527 00 01 20
00 00 20
528/2672
526 00 06 30 525 00 00 20 522 00 07 59 519 00 02 60 518 00 02 00 517 00 01 80 488 00 03 30 487 00 01 00 485 00 02 30 486 00 01 90 476 00 01 60
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1409
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1
2
3
144
4
6
5
00
60
01
471/2414
पदुमबसान
जारी..... 403 00 01 20
160 00 03 80
159 00 01 50
161 00 00 90
158 00 01 10.
157 00 04 00
156 00 01 50
155 00 00 20
154 00 04 90
153 00 00 20
128 00 00 20
130 00 01 70
129 00 04 40
127 00 04 20
111 00 02 90
4 145 164 00 00
बाड़पदुमबसान 90
162 00 00 90
:
161 00 00 20
160 00 05 10
159 00 02 60
171 00 00 80
172 00 00 20
00 01 90
171/914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
1410
4 5 6
2 3
1
00 06 70
217
145
बाड़पदुमबसान
00 02 70
जारी..... 218
00 01 40
242
00 00 20
240
00 01 40
64
भूवनेश्वरपुर 146 02 20
67 00
00 00 20
68
00 01 20
91
00 03 40
63
00 02 10
65
00 00 40
62
00 04 40
66
00 00 70
71
00 02 10
142
00 00 20
143
00 01 30
141
00 03 50
140
00 02 40
145
00 00 40
138
00 01 70
137
00 00 20
146
00 01 30
136
00 02 00
149
00 02 30
150
00 00 20
206 148 00 01 20
00 03 90
200 151 00 02 20
00 00 60
204 152 00 00 40
00 00 30
201 154 00 02 20
00 03 30
195 155 00 00 20
00 00 60
199 475 00 01 10
198 00 05 20
474 00 00 30
00 00 30
196 473 00 04 80
00 03 50
197 00 00 20
219 00 04 30
474/1742
497
30
00
00 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1411
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
496 00 00 50
भूवनेश्वरपुर 146
जारी..... 495 00 00 20
494 00 03 50
1680 00 00 20
468 00 00 20
493 00 00 50
490 00 00 20
492 00 01 80
594 00 03 70
595 00 01 80
596 00 01 40
597 00 01 50
598 00 00 90
599 00 00 30
600 00 00 20
169 00 01 00
00 00 70
919/1706
137 694 00 01 40
6 राधा बल्लभपुर
615 00 02
613 00 13 80
589 00 00 70
588 00 00 20
614 00 01 10
612 00 00 60
590 00 00 20
592 00 04 90
593 00 02 80
594 00 03 20
595 00 04 00
597 00 00 80
565 00 04 10
566 00 03 30
567 00 05 00
573 00 01 70
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1412
3 4 5 6
1 2
571 00 00 90
राधा बल्लभपुर. 137
जारी. 570 00 01 10
568 00 00 30
569 00 00 40
572 00 00 50
566 00 03 30
564 00 00 70
563 00 03 70
562 00 01 90
561 00 00 40
557 00 03 70
556 00 00 40
558 00 03 50
545 00 09 30
543 00 01 00
544 00 05 70
498 00 04 50
510 00 04 30
509 00 00 90
511 00 00 20
512 00 09 40
513 00 01 40
504 00 04 90
503 00 00 20
753 00 03 70
7 बॅहिचाड़ 136
752 00 05 80
751 00 08 60
750 00 04 40
748 00 CO 20
749 00 00 40
58 00 03 90
97
8 रामकालुया
59 00 00 90
60 00 01 10
65 00 00 20
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1413
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1
2
3
75
97
रामकालुया
जारी.....
4
5
6
00
00
80
02
00
40
76/788
9 हरशकर खामारचक 59 1776
1775
1774
1773
1764
1772
1795
1756
1771
1770
1769
1674
1675
1676
1669
1680
1668
1665
1630
1629
1628
1627
1610
1631
1632
1609
1633
1651
1595
1590
1589
1588
537 GI/2013-12
00 03 40 00 01 30 00 . 01 40 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 01 90 00 00 40 00 01 90 00 01 90 00 02 40 00 04 50 00 03 00 00 05 40 00 07 20 00 00 60 00 01 00 00 01 30 00 05 20 00 01 50 00 90 00 01 10 00 01 00 00 00 60 00 03 10 00 02 10 00 03 20 00 00 20 00 01 30 00 02 40 00 00 80 00 00 70
1414
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) |
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
हरशंकर खामारचक - 59 1587 00 02 80
जारी..... 1577 00 00 90
1557 00 04 00
1558 00 03 50
1559 00 02 90
1547 00 01 50
1546 00 06 30
1518 00 05 70
1517 00 02 50
1516 00 02 20
1480 00 03 30
1479 00 03 00
1475 00 03 10
1524 00 01 40
10 नीलकंठिया 52 1538 00 06 30
602 00 05 30
603 00 03 90
604 00 03 50
606 00 02 20
605 00 03 60
610 00 02 90
612 00 02 80
613 00 03 80
614 00 04 40
615 00 01 80
616 00 01 10
617 00 01 70
618 00 01 40
619 00 01 50
651 00 02 60
652 00 02 30
653 00 00 20
650 00 05 10
632 00 03 60
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1415
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
नीलकंठिया 52 649 00 01 60
जारी..... 648 00 00 20
647 00 00 70
646 00 02 00
645 00 01 20
644 00 01 70
643 00 01 60
636 00 03 00
638 00 00 20
00 00 20
1479/3129
637 00 03 30
1478 00 01 30
684 00 01 20
913 00 02 40
911 00 02 20
910 00 00 20
914 00 01 60
923 00 00 80
922 00 00 20
920 00 02 00
919 00 00 30
921 00 01 00
918 00 01 20
917 00 01 60
916 00 02 50
964 00 00 30
962 00 01 40
961 00 05 90
966 00 03 30
1108 00 00 20
967 00 01 20
00 01 50
967/3071
1107 00 02 70 1101 00 00 20
1416
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
नीलकंठिया 52 1103 00 00 50
जारी..... 1102 00 02 80
1099 00 00 70
1098 00 02 60
1097 00 01 40
1096 00 00 40
1095 00 03 00
1091 00 03 30
1093 00 00 20
1092 00 02 10
1043 00 03 30
1044 00 01 80
1042 00 03 50
1045 00 00 20
1050 00 05 20
1058 00 00 80
1056 00 01 50
1057 00 03 70
1216 00 01 10
1217 00 01 10
1220 00 00 70
1221 00 01 40
1222 00 02 00
1223 00 03 70
1224 00 00 80
20 00 01 90
100 00 02 10
99 00 03 10
98 00 06 70
87 00 03 00
94 00 01 30
93 00 03 40
92 00 00 60
91 00 00 20
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1417
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1
2
3
नीलकंठिया 52
90
जारी.....
2978
2987
2988
2990
2954 4
5
6
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
04
60
00
02
40
00
06
00
00
00
60
00
01
40
2954/3306
00
10
03
2953/3305
2953 00 03 20
00 00 80
2975/3478
2975 00 00 90
00 02 80
2952/3292
2947 00 00 20
2948 00 00 20
2952 00 03 00
2949 00 01 50
2950 00 02 40
00 03 40
2925/3287
2951 00 00 20
2925 00 01 30
2926 00 02 70
2920 00 01 20
2916 00 04 70
2919 00 00 20
2917 00 02 80
2918 00 00 20
00 03 20
2917/3286
2908 00 05 90
2910 00 00 20
2909 00 05 00
2897 00 07 60
2900 00 03 50
2899 00 03 10
2898 00 00 60
2876 00 02 70
00 03 20
2877/3282
2878 00 02 40 2879 00 02 10
1418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
2
3 1
2880 नीलकंठिया 52.
2868
जारी.....
2867
PARI 11 SEC . 3 ( ii) |
6
4
5
00
20
00
05
80
00
00
20
00
00
40
01
2864/3281
2864 00 04 70
2860 00 02 30
2861 00 02 10
00 00 20
2861/3279
2862 00 02 70 2858 00 01 30 1574 00 00 40 1575 00 00 30 1576 00 01 80 1577 00 00 60 1582 00 01 60 1581 00 02 30 1584 00 00 20 1585 00 00 20 1586 00 00 20 1587 00 00 20 1588 00 00 50 1568 00 00 70 1567 00 01 90 1589 00 01 00 1656 00 00 80 1657 00 04 40 1658 00 02 50
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/27/2012- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव 1419 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013
S.O. 450.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha ) to Durgapur ( West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writingto the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd. Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal) 1420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
SCHEDULE
PS : TAMLUK - 1
[ PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
DISTRICT : PURBA MEDINIPUR
Nameof the Mouza
SI . No.
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Area
Khasra No.
(R.S.)
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 DHARINDA - 279 1870 00 00 50
1871 00 03 40
1866 00 02 82
1867 00 00 70
1865 00 01 40
1864 00 01 10
1863 00 01 40
1862 00 00 20
1175 00 00 90
1176 00 03 20
00
1178/1960
00 30
1178 00 02 00
1179 00 01 70
1255 00 03 40
" 1254 00 00 20
1191 00 03 10
1252 00 00 70
1251 00 01 70
1250 00 00 20
1196 00 02 60
1197 00 00 70
1198 00 02 20
1199 00 00 20
1245 00 01 40
1244 00 00 20
1246 00 01 40
1247 00 01 70
1248 00 01 70
1269 00 01 50
1270 00 02 30
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1421
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3
DHARINDA - 279 1274
1275
1273
1284
1285
1291
1292
1298
1293
1295
1296
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1051
1050
1049
1038
970
971
972
967
983
984
985
827
828
825
824
823
822
832
537Gl /2013-13
1422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934 [PART 11-SEC. 3(i ))
4 5 6
2 3
1 4 5 6
821 00 00 50
DHARINDA - 279 ( Contd ... ) 00 03 20
266 00 00 20
2 DAHARPUR - 276 00 01 60
265 00 01 10
00 00 20
264 00 00 90
00 03 70
249 00 02 90
00 00 20
248 00 00 70
00 00 50
252 00 01 70
00 01 20
261 00 00 80
00 00 20
00 00 20
253
00 01 30
254 00 00 80
00 02 10
257 00 03 30
00 03 30
255 00 01 80
00 01 90
256 00 02 10
00 00 30
171 00 04 60
00 00 20
168 00 00 80
00 01 00
169 00 01 60
00 00 80
170 00 00 90
00 01 20
78/522 00 04 50
00 00 80
78 00 04 10
00 01 30
88 00 00 20
00 00 50
87 00 06 50
00 03 10
84 00 01 80
00 00 90
85 00 00 20
00 03 50
83 00 06 90
00 03 80
82 00 04 50
00 01 50
32 00 01 60
00 00 50
00 01 10
33
00 00 20
31 00 01 60
00 08 10
2 00 00 503
00 03 20
00 01 30
1 00
00 60
624 00 01 80
3 PADUMBASAN - 144 00 01 20
623/2408 00 01 20
00 01 30
623 00 00 90
00 01 60
613 00 01 80
00 00 40
भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1423
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934 [PART II--SIC . 3(ii) ]
3 3 4 4 5 6 6
1 1 2 2 5
471/2414 00 00 01 60
PADUMBASAN - 144 PADUMBASAN - 144 612 05 10
611 403 00 00 04 01 90 20
608 160 00 00 00 03 20 80
159 00 01 50
580 00 04 40
579 161 00 00 02 00 90 90
158 00 01 20 10
581 00 00
157 00 04 00
584 00 00 20
156 00 01 50
585 00 00 20
155 00 00 20
586 00 06 40
154 00 00 00 04 20 90
587
588 153 00 00 01 00 70 20
128 00 00 00 20 20
589 00
130 00 00 01 70 70
576 03
129 00 00 04 90 40
568 04
127 00 04 20
569 00 01 00
111 00 00 02 00 90
546 02
164 00 00 90
4 BARPADUMBASAN - 145 567 00 00 20
162 00 00 90
547 00 01 60
161 00 00 20
545 00 11 10
160 00 05 10
548 00 00 20
159 00 02 6C
549 00 00 20
171 00 00 80
527 00 01 20
172 00 00 20
28/2672 00 00 20
171/914 00 01 90
526 00 06 30
206 00 01 20
525 00 00 20
200 00 02 20
522 00 07 59
204 00 00 40
519 00 02 60
201 00 02 20
518 00 02 00
195 00 00 20
517 00 01 80
199 00 01 10
488 00 03 30
198 00 00 30
487 00 01 00
196 00 04. 80
485 00 02 30
197 00 00 20
486 00 01 90
219 00 04 30
476 00 01 60
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1425
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1 2 3 4 6
5
BARPADUMBASAN - 145 217 00 06 70
218 00 02 70
242 00 01 40
240 00 00 20
5 BHUBANESWARPUR-146 64 00 01 40
67 00 02 20
68 00 00 20
91 00 01 20
63 00 03 40
65 00 02 10
62 00 00 40
66 00 04 40
71 00 00 70
142 00 02 10
143 00 00 20
141 00 01 30
140 00 03 50
145 00 02 40
138 00 00 40
137 00 01 70
146 00 00 20
136 00 01 30
149 00 02 00
150 00 02 30
148 00 00 20
151 00 03 90
152 00 00 60
154 00 00 30
155 00 03 30
475 00 00 60
474 00 05 20
473 00 00 30
474/1742 00 03 50
497 00 00 30
1426
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
BHUBANESWARPUR - 146 496 00 00 50
495 00 00 20
494 00 03 50
1680 00 00 20
468 00 00 20
493 00 00 50
490 00 00 20
492 00 01 80
594 00 03 70
595 00 01 80
596 00 01 40
597 00 01 50
598 00 00 90
599 00 00 30
600 00 00 20
169 00 01 00
919/1706 00 00 70
6 RADHA BALLAVPUR - 137 694 00 01 40
615 00 02 00.
613 00 13 80
589 00 00 70
588 00 00 20
614 00 01 10
612 00 00 60
590 00 00 20
592 00 04 90
593 00 02 80
594 00 03 20
595 00 04 00
597 00 00 80
565 00 04 10
566 00 03 30
567 00 05 00
573 00 01 70
1427
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
RADHA BALLAVPUR - 137 571 00 00 90
570 00 01 10
568 00 00 30
569 00 00 40
572 00 00 50
566 00 03 30
564 00 00 70
563 00 03 70
562 00 01 90
561 00 00 40
557 00 03 70
556 00 00 40
558 00 03 50
545 00 09 30
543 00 01 00
544 00 05 70
498 00 04 50
510 00 04 30
509 00 00 90
511 00 00 20
512 00 09 40
513 00 01 40
504 00 04 90
503 00 00 20
7 BANHICHAR - 136 753 00 03 70
752 00 05 80
751 00 08 60
750 00 04 40
748 00 00 20
749 00 00 40
8 RAMKALUA - 97 58 00 03 90
59 00 00 90
60 00 01 10
65 00 00 20
1428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1 2 3
RAMKALUA - 97 75
76/788
9 HARASHANKAR KHAMARCHAK - 59 1776
1775
1774
1773
1764
1772
1795
1756
1771
1770
1769
1674
1675
1676
1669
1680
1668
1665
1630
1629
1628
1627
1610
1631
1632
1609
1633
1651
1595
1590
1589
1588
[PART II-SEC. 3( i)]
4 5 6 00 00 80 00 02 40 00 03 40 00 01 30 00 01 40 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 01 90 00 00 40 00 01 90 00 01 90 00 02 40 00 04 50 00 03 00 00 05 40 00 07 20 00 00 60 00 01 00 00 01 30 00 05 20 00 01 50 00 00 90 00 01 10 00 01 00 00 00 60 00 03 10 00 02 10 00 03 20 00 00 20 00 01 30 00 02 40 00 00 80 00 00 70
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1429
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन4, 19.34
1 2 3
HARASHANKAR KHAMARCHAK - 59 1587
Contd... 1577
1557
1558
1559
1547
1546
1518
1517
1516
1480
1479
1475
1524
10 NILKANTHIA - 52 1538
602
603
604
606
605
610
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
651
652
653
650
632
537 G1/2013-14
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934 [PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) |
1430
4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
1
00 01 60
NILKANTHIA - 52 649 00 02 80
00 00 20
648 00 00 90
Contd
00 00 70
647 00 04 00
00 02 00
646 00
03. 50
00 01 20
645 02
00 . 90
00 01 70
644 00 01 50
00 01 60
643 00 30
06
00 03 00
636 00 05 70
638 00 00 20
00 02 50
00 00 20
1479/3129 00 02 20
637 00 03 30
00 03 30
1478 00 01 30
00 03 00
684 00 01 20
00 03 10
913 00 02 40
00 01 40
00 02 20
911 00
06 30
910 00 00 20
00 05 30
914 00 01 60
00 03 90
00 00 80
923 03 50
00
00 00 20
922 00 02 20
00 02 00
920 00 60
03
00 00 30
919
00 02 90
00 01 00
921
00 02 80
918 00 01 20
00 03 80
00 01 60
917
00 04 40
916 00 02 50
00 01 80
964 00 00 30
00 01 10
962 00 01 40
00 01 70
00 05 90
961
00 01 40
966 00 03 30
00 01 50
1108 00 00 20
00 02 60
967 00 01 20
00 02 30
967/3071 00 01 50
00 00 20
1107 00 02 70
00 05 10
1101 00 00 20
00 . 03 60
1431
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
NILKANTHIA - 52 1103 00 00 50
Contd... 1102 00 02 80
1099 00 00 70
1098 00 02 60
1097 00 01 40
1096 00 00 40
1095 00 03 00
1091 00 03 30
1093 00 00 20
1092 00 02 10
1043 00 03 30
1044 00 01 80
1042 00 03 50
1045 00 00 20
1050 00 05 20
1058 00 00 80
1056 00 01 50
1057 00 03 70
1216 00 01 10
1217 00 01 10
1220 00 00 70
1221 00 01 40
1222 00 02 00
1223 00 03 70
1224 00 00 80
20 00 01 90
100 00 02 10
99 00 03 10
98 00 06 70
87 00 03 00
94 00 01 30
93 00 03 40
92 00 00 60
91 00 00 20
1432
[PART II ---SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
NILKANTHIA - 52 90 00 00 20
Contd... 2978 00 00 20
2987 00 04 60
2988 00 02 40
2990 00 06 00
2954 00 00 60
2954/3306 00 01 40
2953/3305 00 03 10
2953 00 03 20
2975/3478 00 00 80
2975 00 00 90
2952/3292 00 02 80
2947 00 00 20
2948 00 00 20
2952 00 03 00
2949 00 01 50
2950 00 02 40
2925/3287 00 03 40
2951 00 00 20
2925 00 01 30
2926 00 02 70
2920 00 01 20
2916 00 04 70
2919 00 00 20
2917 00 02 80
2918 00 00 20
2917/3286 00 03 20
2908 00 05 90
2910 00 00 20
2909 00 05 00
2897 00 07 60
2900 00 03 50
2899 00 03 10
2898 00 00 60
2876 00 02 70
2877/3282 00 03 20
2878 00 02 40
2879 00 02 10
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1433
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन4, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
NILKANTHIA - 52 2880 00 00 20
Contd... 2868 00 05 80
2867 00 00 20
2864/3281 00 01 40
2864 00 04 70
2860 00 02 30
2861 00 02 10
2861/3279 00 00 20
2862 00 02 70
2858 00 01 30
1574 00 00 40
1575 00 00 30
1576 00 01 80
1577 00 00 60
1582 00 01 60
1581 00 02 30
1584 00 00 20
1585 00 00 20
1586 00 00 20
1587 00 00 20
1588 00 00 50
1568 00 00 70
1567 00 01 90
1589 00 01 00
1656 00 00 80
1657 00 04 40
1658 00 02 50
[ F. No. R - 25011 / 27/2012 -O.R. - 1
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1434
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 451. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
in pursuance of the settlement he was re - engaged by the Vidyalaya with effect from 14-11-2002 . His services were again dispensed with on 14-11-2003 . He made a demand for reinstatement of his services , which demand was not conceded to by the Vidyalaya . An industrial dispute was raised by him before the Conciliation Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Vidyalaya, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure . On consideration of failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi , vide order No.L-42012 / 217 /2005 - IR ( CM - II ) , New Delhi dated 17-08-2006 with following terms:
[सं. एल -42012/217/2005 - आई आर ( सीएम-11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
"Whether the action of the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya in terminating the services of Shri Baij Nath Maurya with effect from 07-10-2004 is legal and justified ? If not , ' to what relief the workman is entitled to?
New Delhi , the 24th January, 2013
S.O. 451. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013 .
[No. L-42012/217/2005 - IR (CM - II)]
Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2. Claim statement was filed by the casual labour, namely, Shri Baij Nath Maurya , pleading therein that he was working as gardener against a permanent post with the Vidyalaya . His services were terminated on 16-1-02 in an illegal manner . He approached the Conciliation Officer and a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 30-01-2002 , wherein it was assured that his services would be reckoned with continuity and full back wages and would be reengaged by the Vidyalaya . He was taken back on duty on 14-11-2002 . His services were again illegally terminated on 14.11.2003 . He visited the Vidyalaya several times , requesting them to take him back on duty. His request was not conceded to . He declares that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services . He seeks reinstatement of his services in the Vidyalaya with continuity and full back wages .
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DELHI
ID No. 81/2011
Shri Baij Nath Maurya
...Claimant
S/o Shri Ram Padarath , R/ o H.No.79 - A , Block, Gali No. 1 , Dakshinpuri , New Delhi .
Versus
ThePrincipal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya , JNU Campus , New Mehrauli Road , New Delhi .
...Management
AWARD
3. Claim was demurred by the Vidyalaya pleading that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain it , in view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985. Vidyalaya claims that jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been excluded by the provisions of the aforesaidAct. It has not been disputed that the claimant was engaged by the Vidyalaya , but it is refuted that he was engaged against a permanent vacancy. It is projected that he was advised not to report for work with effect from 15-01-02 . Settlement , entered into between the parties before the Conciliation Officer , is also not a matter ofdispute . Vidyalaya. claims that in terms of the settlement , he was re - engaged on 14-11-2002 . His services were discontinued with effect from 14-11-2003 . His wages were paid till he was engaged by the Vidyalaya . Since his claim for reinstatement is unwarranted , it may be dismissed.
4.Onpleadings of the parties , following issues were settled:
(i ) Whether termination of services of the claimant was with effect from 07-10-04 or from 14-11-2003 ?
A part time casual labour was engaged by Kendriya Vidyalaya, JNU Campus , New Mehrauli Road , New Delhi (in short the Vidyalaya ). His services' were dispensed with on 15-01-2002 . He approached the Conciliation Officer, where a settlement was arrived at and 1435 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
(ii) What is the effect of the ambiguity in the reference order ?
(iii) As in terms of reference.
(iv) Relief.
expediency of making a reference are matters entirely for the Government to decide . An order making a reference is an administrative act and the fact that the Government has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character . The adequacy or sufficiency of material on which opinion was formed is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny.
5. Claimant has examined himself in support of his claim . Shri S.M. Garg , Principal , entered the witness box onbehalf ofthe Vidyalaya . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Sanjay Kumar, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Dr. Pooran Chand , authorized representative , raised submissions on behalf of the Vidyalaya . Written submissions were also filed by the parties . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
Issue No. 1 .
7. In his claim statement, claimant pleads that his services were illegally terminated by the Vidyalaya for the second time on 14-11-2003 . In its written statement , Vidyalaya projects that the claimant was re - engaged on 14-11-2002 , in pursuance of settlement entered into between the parties before the Conciliation Officer. His services were discontinued on 14-11-2003 , since he was a daily wage employee . Therefore , out of pleadings put forward by the parties , it is emerging that the services of the claimant were dispensed with on 14-11-2003.
8. In his affidavit Ex . WW1 / A , tendered as evidence , claimant unfolds that his services were illegally terminated for the second time on 14-11-2003 . Vidyalaya has not dispelled these facts , when testimony of the claimant was purified by an ordeal of cross examination . Shri S.M. Garg also declares in his affidavit Ex.MWI / A , tendered as evidence , that services of the claimant were dispensed with on 14-11-2003 . Thus it is crystal clear that services of the claimant were dispensed with on 14-11-2003. Inadvertently, in the reference order ; the appropriate Government has mentioned the date of termination of services of the claimant as 07-10-2004 . Issue is , therefore , answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2
10. The scope of a reference is a matter of considerable importance . Although it is open to an industrial adjudicator to devise his own procedure , but he has to confine his adjudication to the points of dispute specified in the order of reference and to matters incidental thereto. Before embarking on adjudication , therefore , the adjudicator has to determine the scope of the order of reference . Hence , the question of the scope and construction of the order of reference becomes relevant . The construction of the order of reference will , in all probability, be easy or difficult, according as the document has been skilfully or carelessly drawn. In India Paper Pulp Company Limited [ 1949 ( 1 ) LLJ 258] the Federal Court was concerned with a proposition as to whether the order of reference can be construed by an adjudicator. Chief Justice Kania , speaking for the Court , said that not infrequently , the orders of reference are " far from satisfactory and are not carefully drafted " . It is , therefore , desirable that the appropriate Government should frame such orders carefully and the question which are intended to be tried by the adjudicator should be so worded as to leave no scope for ambiguity or controversy. Same proposition of lawwas laid by the Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited [ 1967 ( 1 ) LLJ 423 ] . In accuracy of language employed in the order of reference , however, does not always make any difference to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to proceed with the reference and adjudicate upon it, as the Tribunal can interpret and find out the real meaning ofthe order of reference , as it stands . A duty is cast upon the Tribunal to make an attempt to construe order of reference to find out as to what was the real dispute which was referred to it and to decide it and not to throw it out on amere technicality. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Express Newspaper Limited [ 1962 ( 11 ) LLJ 227 ] . Reference can also be made to the precedent in Management of Barpukhurie Tea Estate [ 1978 (I ) LLJ 558 ] and Minimax Limited [ 1968 ( I ) LLJ 369] .
11. When phraseology of order of reference is inelegant , the Tribunal should look to the substance rather than to the form of the order of reference . In construing terms of the order of reference and determining the scope and nature of the points referred , the Tribunal has to look into the order of reference itself. Therefore , it is clear that where the order of reference is vague or cryptic, the tribunal may cull out the real question by construing 9. As pointed out above , services of the claimant weredispensed with on 14-11-2003 and not on 07-10-2004 . In their pleadings , parties project that services of the claimantwere dispensed with on 14-11-2003 . For referring an industrial dispute for adjudication the appropriate Government should satisfy itself, on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice , in its subjective opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. The factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension and [PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1436
shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters . "
14. The above provisions make it clear that the jurisdiction ofthis Tribunal is saved to entertajn matters relating to recruitment or concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post . Thus it does not lie in the mouth of the Vidyalaya to claim that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present matter. Resultantly, objection raised by the Vidyalaya in that regard is brushed aside .
its phraseology. In C.P.Sarathy [ 1953 ( 1 ) LLJ 174 ] the Apex Court ruled that when order of reference is not clear the Tribunal may crystallise the terms of reference from the statements of the respective cases of the parties . In Delhi Clothand General Mills Limited (supra ) the Apex Court candidly laid that " the Tribunal must, in any event , look to the pleadings of the parties to find the exact nature ofthe dispute, because in most cases the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out there from the various points about which the parties were at variance , leading to the trouble " . From above proposition of law laid itis evident that the Tribunal is competent to construe the terms of reference , when it is vaguely worded and can ascertain the real dispute between the parties even from its pleadings . The ambiguity in the reference order can be removed by the Tribunal , out of the pleadings of the parties . Exact date of termination of service of the claimant is 14-1-2003 and wrong narration of it in the reference would not make adjudication process incompetent . Issue is answered , accordingly .
Issue No. 3
15. Now, I would turn to the factual matrix . As unfolded by the claimant , he was serving with the Vidyalaya as a gardener. His services were dispensed with on 15-01-2002 . He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and settlement was arrived at between the parties . In pursuance of the said settlement , he was re- engaged with effect from 14-11-2002 . Facts unfolded by Shri Maurya are not disputed by Shri Garg in that regard . In his affidavit Ex ,. MWI /A, Shri Garg declares that the claimant was engaged as daily wage worker. He asserts that he was not appointed against a permanent vacancy. He was advised not to report for duty on 15-01-2002 . He raised an industrial dispute and a settlement was arrived at between the parties before the Conciliation Officer , terms ofwhich settlement are reproduced hereunder :
" 1. It is agreed by the management that they will engagethe workman , Shr Baij Nath . Mourya, as daily paid worker with effect from 15-11-2002.
2. It is further agreed by the management that past service rendered by the workman during the year 2001 will be considered for the purpose of regularization of service against the permanent post .
12 & 13. In its written statement , Vidyalaya raised ojections to the effect that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enter ain the dispute , in view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985. Though no issue was settledon this proposition , since findings were recorded in order dated 07-07-2011 against the Vidyalaya in that reş a' . Even otherwise it is thought expedient to deal the issu, again herein . Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 , excludes jurisdiction of all courts to dea!with the matters relating to , recruitment and concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed in service or post , except the Supreme Court and Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) or any other corresponding law for the time being in force. For the sake of convenience , provisions of Section 28 of the aforesaid Act are extracted thus :
3. It is agreed by the. workman , Shri Baij Nath Maurya that he will not claim back wages .
"28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court:
4. It is further agreed by the workman that he will not raise the dispute on the issue involved in the instant dispute before any other forum henceforth "
On and from the date from which any jurisdiction , powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matters concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post.
No court except-
(a) the Supreme Court ; or
16. Claimant was re - engaged on 14-11-2002 and his services were dispensed with on 11-11-2003 . , which facts are detailed by him and reaffirmed by Shri Garg in his testimony. Therefore , it is emerging over the record that the claimant rendered continuous service with the Vidyalaya from 14-11-2002 to 14-11-2003 . Past service rendered by him during the year 2001 was to be considered for the purpose of regularisation of his service , in pursuance of terms of settlement referred above . Question of consideration comes as to whether claimant rendered (b) any Industrial Tribunal , Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, 1437 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
continuous service of one year with the Vidyalaya. For an answer to this proposition , it would be ascertained as to what phrase " continuous service " means . " Continuous service " has been defined by Section 25 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) . Under sub- section (1) of the said Section , " continuous service for a period" may comprise of two periods viz . ( i ) uninterrupted service , and ( ii ) interrupted service on account of ( a) sickness , (b) authorized leave , ( c ) an accident, ( d) a strike which is not legal , ( e) a lock- out , and (f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman , shall be included in the " continuous service . " Sub - section (2) of the said Section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service " within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses ( a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab.I.C.1180 ) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub- section (2 ) . furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workrnan is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the Section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act . Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman actually worked for not less than 240 days ' during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment .
17. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [ 1970(2 ) LLJ 306 ] , Apex Court announced that when a workman renders continuous service of net less than 240 days in 12 calendar months , he is deemed to have completed one year's service in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which are extracted thus :
to seek regularization of his services on monthly salary with benefits like pension , gratuity etc. Interruption of service occurred during the course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services . Fiction under section 25B of the Act will operate if workman has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The explanation appended to the section specifically includes the days on whichworkmanwas laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with full wages , or he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out ofand in the course of his employment and in the case of a female , maternity leave, under the expression ' actually worked' used under sub - section (2 ) of Section 25 B of the Act. Question for consideration comes as to whether the words " actually worked " would not include holidays , Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid. The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition in American Express Banking Corporation [ 1985 (2 ) LLJ 539 ] . It was ruled therein that the expression 'actually worked under the employer ' cannot mean those days only when theworkman worked with hammer , sickle or pen , but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute , standing orders etc. Court ruled that Sundays and other holidays , would be comprehended in the words " actually worked " and it countenanced the contention, of the employer that only days which are rnentioned in the explanation should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number ofdays on which the workman had actually worked though he had not so worked and no other days . The court observed that the explanation is only clarificatory. as all explanations are , and cannot be used to limit the scope of the main provision . Precedent in Lalappa Lingappa [ 1981 ( 1 ) LJ 308 ] was distinguished by the Apex Court in the case referred above . The precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. [ 1986 (1 ) LJ 34 ] . Thus , it is crystal clear from the law laid above thatSundays and holidays shall be included in computing continuous service under Section 25B of the Act .
19. As detailed above , service of the claimant was disengaged by the Vidyalaya at first spell on 30-01-2002 . He rendered continuous service for a period of 281 days "Under Section 25B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed One year's service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment. These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under Section 25B has further to show that he has worked during all the periods he has been in the service of the employer for 240 days in the year . "
in the preceding 12 months from that date . He was reengaged on 14-11-2002 , in terms of settlement arrived at before the Conciliation Officer . His services were again dispensed with on 14-11-2003 . During this period , he is shown to have served only for a period of one month and six days. Question would emerge as to whether the carlier period, which is to be taken into consideration, by the Vidyalaya for regularization would be reckoned with the second spell . As projected above , period of interrupted service , detailed in sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 25B of the Act, would also be taken into consideration.
18. When the workman concerned fails to establish that he worked for atleast 240 days in the year, he cannot claim protection against termination of his services in order
537 GI/2013-15 1438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23,2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
Those periods of interrupted service are:
(a) Sickness
(b) Authorised leave
(c) An accident
(d) A strike which is not illegal
(e) A lockout , and
(f) A cessation of work that is not due to any fault on part of the workman , shall be included in the ' continuous service ' .
20. Shri Garg presents that the claimant was re- engaged on 14-11-2002 and his services were disengaged on 14-11-2003 . He places reliance on attendance record and receipts of payments made to the claimant to explain the period for which the claimant worked with the Vidyalaya . Documents , which are Ex.MWI/ 1 to Ex.MW1 /24 , are not disputed by the claimant . When these documents are perused , it came to light that claimant was engaged for the first time by the Vidyalaya in November 2000. He served upto 16-01-2002 , when his services were dispensed with . When abave documents are scrutinized , it emerged that in preceding 12 months from the date of his disengagement , the claimant rendered 281 days service with the Vidyalaya.
21. As admitted by Shri Garg , claimant was re- employed 14-11-2002 . From 30-01-2002 , till 14-11-2002 it was a situation of cessation of employment not due to any fault of the claimant . Therefore , this period is to be reckoned as a part of continuous service . Lawto this effect was laid by the Karnataka High Court in Honnayya 1958 ( II ) LLJ 487 ] , wherein it was observed that " it would be a travesty of law to say that if a persen is given work for a few days in a year by an employer, either as a leave bstitute or to meet the extra work arising out of any occasion , the rest of the days on which no work is given does not amount to ' cessation of employment ' within the meaning of Section 25- B ( 1) and that the workman must be deemed to be in continuous service of such employer is pertinent " . When this interrupted period , which was tessation of employment , is reckoned, it would emerge that in the year 2002 , the claimant had rendered centinuous service of 240 days .
22. No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to the claimant by the Vidyalaya , not to talk of retrenchment compensation . Whether termination of services of claimant amounts to retrenchment ? For an answer, definition of the term " retrenchment" is to be construed. Clause ( oo ) of Section 2 of the Act defines " retrenchment " . For the sake of convenience , the said definition is extracted thus:-
" (oo) " retrenchment " means the termiration by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason whatsoever , otherwise than as a punishment inflictedby way of disciplinary action, but does not include
[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
( a) voluntary retirement of the workman ; or
(b ) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such cantract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein ; or
(c) terminati.on of the services of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health " .
23. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in two parts . The first part is exhaustive , which lays down thatretrenchment means the termination of the service of a workman by the employer " for any reason whatsoever " otherwise then as a punishment inflictedby way of disciplinary action . Thus main part of the definition itself excludes the termination of service , as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from the ambit of retrenchment . The second part further excludes ( i ) voluntary retirement of the workman , or ( ii ) retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation , or ( iii ) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non - renewal of contract of employment , or ( iv ) termination of contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf, or ( v) termination of service on the ground of continued ill health of the workman . Reference can be made to the precedents in Avon Services (Production Agencies ) ( Pvt . ) Ltd. ( 1979 ( 1 ) LLJ 1 ] and Mahabir ( 1979 ( II ) LLJ 363 ] .
24. Whether provisions of retrenchment , enacted in theAct , provide for any security of tenure ? Answer lies in negative. Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service , falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment . On compliance of the requirements of Sections 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act , it is open to the employer to retrench a workman.
25. Provisions of Section 25F of the Act puts an embargo on an employer not to retrench services of his employee who has been in continuous service for not less than one year , until one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation for every completed year of continuous service is paid . Obviously, retrenchment compensation was not paid to the claimant in terms of Section 25F of the Act . Therefore , action of the Vidyalaya isviolative of Section 25 F of the Act and cannot be held to be legal and justified.
(North), and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013 .
[No. L-22011 /45/2008 - IR (CM - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 214/2011
TheGeneral Secretary, Food Corporation of India ( Handling) Workers' Union , 8654 , Arakshan Road, New Delhi - 110055 . ...Workman
26. Since disengagement of the claimant was in violation of provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act , he is entitled to reinstatement in service . However, no cogent evidence has been brought over the record by the claimant to the effect he is unemployed since the date of termination of his service . The claimant pleads that he remained unemployed after termination of his services . He nowhere unfolds as to what steps were taken by him to gain employment . The Vidyalaya had also not offered av evidence relating to his gainful employment . Thus it is apparent that the parties had not offered any evidence to record, a finding relating to gainful employment or unemployment of the claimant during the period of such interregnum . These facts make me to comment that grant of full back wages would amount to grant of bonanza to the claimant . On the other hand the Vidyalaya cannot be given a premium for its illegal acts . Considering all these facts. it is ordered that the claimant is entitled to 25 percent ofhis back wages for the period of interregnum.
Versus
Relief
The General Manager ( Region) , Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, DDA Complex . Rajendra Place , New Delhi - 110008 .
...Management
AWARD
27. In view of the reasons detailed above , it is clear that the claimant is entitled to reinstatement in service of the Vidyalaya as daily wager gardener ; with continuity of service , 25 percent of back wages and all consequential benefits . In case a regular vacancy exists or when it arises in future , case of the claimant shall be considered for absorption in service by the Vidyalaya , in consonance with the terms of settlement , referred above . An award , is accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated:24-12-2012
नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 452. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 214/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-22011/45/ 2008- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th January, 2013
AMandal working in Gang No. 3 , Departmental Labour, Ghevra Depot, Food Corporation of India ( in short the Corporation) was promoted to the post of Sardar by the Area Manager , Shakti Nagar , Delhi . While promoting the Mandal to the post of Sardar , the Area Manager had not taken into consideration depot wise seniority. As such , promotion of Mandal to the post of Sardar was cancelled by the Manager , Shakti Nagar , Delhi , on the next day . Aggrieved by the order of cancellation of his promotion. the Mandal approached the Food Corporation of India Handling Workers ' Union ( hereinafter referred to as the Union) for redressal of his grievance. The Union raised a demand for cancellation of order dated 18.12.2007 , on the strength of which promotion of Mandal to the post of Sardarwas rescinded . Since the demand was not conceded to by the Corporation , Union raised an industrial dispute Corporation contested the claim and as such conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of failure report , submitted by the Concilliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , New Delhi fou adjudication , vide order No.1 . - 22011 /45 / 2008 - IR ( CM - ID NewDelhidated 20-08-2008 with following terms :
"Whether action of the management of FCI in cancelling order of promotion of Shri Sanjay Paswan from mandal to sardar with effect from 24-12-2007 legal and justified ? To what relief is the workman entitled?"
S.O. 452. In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 214/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India . Zonal Office Shri Balram Giri was also promoted in the same manner on 11-11-93 . It has been claimed that the order dated 18-12-2007, which tantamounts to reversal ofShri Paswan to the post ofMandal may be declared illegal . The Union claims that an award may be passed in favour of Shri Paswan declaring him to be Sardar with effect from 17-12-2007with all consequential benefits .
2. Claim statement was filed by the Union pleading that for execution of work of procurement , storage , preservation , segregating, weighment , standardisation , transportation and distribution of food grains through public distribution system in the entire country, the Corporation deploys food handling workers in categories of departmental labour, direct payment system , no work no pay system and management committee system. Workmen of all above categories are employees of the Corporation . Under the categories of departmental labour and direct payment system , group of workers work in gangs . One gang consists of one Sardar , one Mandal and 12handling labours . Sardar , Mandal and handling labours are placed in different grades . Post of Sardar is to be filled by way of promotion from the post of Mandal and post of Mandalform amongst the handling labours . Apart from above classification of categories , another category ofancillary labour also exists , which does not form part of the gang system.
5. The Corporation presents in its written statement thatworkers , working under " no work no pay system " are not employees of the Corporation . Claim made by the Union in that regard is unfounded. Promotions of workmen are to be made in consonance with provisions of certified standing orders , circulars and instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time . Circulars No. 7/06 and 11/07 were issued in that regard. Memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the Corporation and the Union on 17-11-2006 , wherein it was agreed that depot- wise seniority may be maintained for the purpose of promotion and instructions were issued in that regard , vide letter dated 11-12-2007 . Promotion of Shri Sanjay Paswan from the post ofMandal to that of Sardar was made without following due procedure and without taking prior approval of the Competent Authority. Senior Regional Manager is vested with the power of recruitment and promotion of any class III employee . Since promotion of Shri Paswan was illegal and contrary to circulars and instructions , mistake was immediately corrected and order dated 18-12-2007 was issued by the Competent Authority. Order dated 17.12.2007 was withdrawn by the Corporation in accordance with settlement and instructions issued from time to time . Since depot wise seniority was not taken in to consideration , promotion of Shri Sanjay Paswan to the post of Sardar was illegal . Shri Sanjay Paswan was not eligible for promotion to the post of Sardar . No illegality was committed when order dated 18-12-2007 was issued . Claim put forth by the Union may be dismissed , being devoid of merits , pleads the Corporation .
6. Vide order No.Z - 22019/ 6/ 2007 - IR ( CM - I1 ) , New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 the appropriate Government transferred the case to this Tribunal , for adjudication .
7. Shri Sanjay Paswan entered the witness box to substantiate the claim . Shri M.M.Bhatnagar, Area Manager, unfolded facts on behalf of the Corporation . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
3. The Union pleads that at Ghevra Depot of the Corporation,departmental labours work for handing food grains . Departmental labour work there in gang system . Shri Sanjay Paswan works as Mandal in gang No. 3 at the said Depot of the Corporation . He rendered meritorious service to the Corporation with complete dedication . He earned appreciation certificates from his superiors , who had recommended his promotion to the post of Sardar from time to time . His meritorious services were taken into consideration when he was promoted to the post of Sardar, vide letter dated 17-12-2007 , issued by the Area Manager , Shakti Nagar, Delhi . The Area Manager has issued that order with the approval of the Competent Authority. The General Manager (Region ) is the Competent Authority for approval of such promotions . Shri Paswan resumed his duties as Sardar in afternoon of 17-12-2007. He performed his duties as such , which fact emerged out of booking cum work slips dated 17-12-2007 and 18-12-2007 . Shri Paswan fell sick and remained on leave upto 23-12-2007 . On 24-12-2007, he approached Ghevra Depot to resume his duties . He was not allowed to resume his duties on the post of Sardar. He was told that he should receive order of cancellation of his promotion and thereafter resume duties on the post of Mandal . Order dated 18-12-2007 cancelling order of his promotion was issued by the Manager , Shakti Nagar , Delhi . Cancellation ofhis order of promotion is unfair and illegal . Order dated 18-12-2007 does not contain any reason for cancellation of his promotion.
8.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S.P. Peepal , assisted by Shri G.C. Nigam , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the Union . Shri Om Prakash , authorised representative , raised submissions on behalf of the Corporation . Written submissions were also filed on behalf of the Union . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
4. Union projects that promotion of Shri Paswan was done on consideration of meritorious service . It was out of turn promotion on overall assessment of his performance , as an incentive of his past services . One arrived at between the parties . In consonance of the said settlement , circular No.11 /2007 was issued . Thus , it is evident that on the strength of settlement dated 07-11-2007 , it was decided between the parties that for the purpose of promotion depot wise seniority would be maintained.
9. Shri Sanjay Paswan unfolds in his affidavit Ex.WW1 /A , tendered as evidence , that he was working as Mandal in gang No.3 , Ghevra Depot of the Corporation . His meritorious services were recognized by his superiors and as such they issued appreciation letters in his favour. Depot Officer recommended his name for promotion to the post of Sardar, vide letter datea 04-12-2007 . His case was considered and he was promoted as Sardar (deployment ) , vide letter dated 17-12-2007 after due approval from the Competent Authority. Consequent on hispromotion , he assumed charge of the post of Sardar in afternoon of 17-12-2007 . He discharged his duties as such on 18-12-2007. Thereafter he proceeded on medical leave . On 24-12-2007 , when he came to resume his duties , he was not allowed to resume duties on the post of Sardar. He was compelled to receive cancellation order of his promotion. During course of cross examination , he concedes that on 20-11-2007 circular Ex.WWI /M2 was issued. He disputes that the Area Manager was not competent to promote him.
12. Question for consideration would be as to whether promotion of Shri Paswan was in consonance with settlement dated 07-11-07 and circular No. 11 of 2007 issued on 20-11-2007 ? For an answer to this proposition , evidence adduced by the parties is to be construed again . Shri Bhatnagar declares that promotion of Shri Paswan was not in consonance with circulars and instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time . He lays emphasis on circular No.7/06 dated 23-2-2006 and circular No.11 /07 dated 20-11-2007 . He further details that memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the Corporation and the Union on 07-11-07 wherein it was agreed that depot- wise seniority would be maintained for the purpose of promotion. His testimony has not been assailed on above counts , when he faced rigors of cross examination . Even otherwise , in his testimony, Shri Paswan nowhere claims that he was eligible for proportion on depot -wise seniority basis . Thus , it is evident that promotion of Shri Paswan was not based on depot- wise seniority.
13. Settlement dated 07-11-2007 was arrived at between the parties during the course of conciliation proceedings . This settlement binds the parties in respect of terms agreed therein . When contents of the settlement . which has been proved as Ex.MW1 /6 , are appreciated , it came to light that it was agreed between the parties that promotion was to be inade on depot- wise seniority. For sake of convenience , relevant portion of the settlement is extracted thus:
"It is agreed by and between the parties that :
10. Shri M.M. Bhatnagar details in his affidavit Ex.MWI /A, tendered as evidence , that circulars No.7/2006 and 11/2007 were issued by the Corporation . Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at between the Corporation and the Union on 07-11-2007 , where in it was agreed that depot- wise seniority would be maintained for promotion . Instructions to this effect were issued vide letter dated 11-12-2007 . So called appreciation letters , issued in favour ofShri Paswan , would not entitle him for promotion , since he was not eligible for the same . Area Manager. Shakti Nagar. Delhi , had promoted him, without following due procedure and that too without approval of the Competent Authority . Since his promotion was illegal , it was immediately withdrawn on 18-1-2007 by the Competent Authority . Corporation acted fairly, when order dated 18-12-2007 was issued . During course of his cross examination , he details that promotion of Shri Paswan was to be made on depot - wise seniority . Since it was not so done . he rescinded his promotion on instructions of his superiors.
i. The existing promotion policy of gang wisc seniority based on bilateral settlement dated 24-05-1984 will be replaced by depot wise seniority for the purpose of promotion . The merger/ re- organization of labour gangs will be made as per this settlement .
ii . The promotion cases already done finalized to the posts ofmandal / sardar during the intervening period, i.e between 24-02-2006 , the date of issue ofcircular No.7/200 from file No.IR ( L/4 ) 54/2 and the date of signing of this settlement will not be reviewed in order to avoid administrative problems . Further promotion in departmental and DPS categorics of labour will be settled/done on the basis of depot wise seniority.
Any case/dispute relating to promotion of specific worker under Departmental and DPS 11. When facts unfolded by Shri Sanjay Paswan and Shri M.M. Bhatnagar are appreciated, it came to light that Shri Paswan was working as Mandal in gang No.3 . Ghevra Depot . Delhi . in December 2007. His services as Mandal were appreciated by superiors and various appreciation letters were issued in his favour in that regard. In appreciation letters , which are Ex . WW1'tto Ex. WW1 6. his promotion to the post of Sardar has been recommended. Circular No.7 of 2006 was issued by the Corporation detailing therein that depot- wise seniority would be maintained for promotion from the post ofMandal to the post of Sardar . This circular was assailed by the Union and a call of strike was given . Conciliation Officer entered into conciliation proceedings and during the course of conciliation , settlement dated 07-11-2007 was category pending as present before any CGIT. High Court and Dy . CLLC at Bhubaneshwar shall remain out of purview of this settlement .
iii. Henceforth , depot wise seniority will be maintained for the purpose of promotion in departmental and DPS category of labour
iv. Merger reorganisation of labour gangs will be done breaking the last number of gang of the depot first and process should proceed further in descending order .
v. left over sardars , mandals , and handling workers after merger reorganization of full labour gangs will be kept in ' Leave Reserve Pool ' subject to depot-wise seniority . The leave reserve pool workers will be utililzed strictly against leave/ casual vacancy and in the regular gangs against the further vacancy on the basis of depot-wise seniority , as per clause ( iii ) and ( iv) of Circular No.7/2000 dated 23 /24-02-2000 .
vi . It is agreed that parties will not raise any dispute covered under this settlement in future .
vii . This agreement will come into effect from the date of signing of the same . "
14. In terms of settlement referred above , circular No.11 /07 was issued on 20-11-2007 wherein it was mentioned that modified instructions shall come into force with effect from 07-11-2007 . Thus , it is evident that from 07-11-2007 challenge , made by the Union against circular No.7/06 , stood subsided. On the strength of circular 7/06 which was reaffirmed in settlement dated 07-11-2007 , it stood decided that promotion would be governed on depot-wise seniority basis . Thus it is crystal clear that promotion of Shri Paswan could be made to the post of Sardar on depot-wise seniority and not otherwise .
15. Whether settlement dated 07-11-2007 , proved as Ex.MW 1/6 binds the Union and the claimant? As deposed by Shri Bhatnagar, settlement Ex.MW1 /6 was arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings , which has become enforceable . Such a settlement shall be binding onall the parties specified in clauses ( a) , (b) , ( c) and ( d) of sub- section (3 ) of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) . When a settlement is arrived atunder section 18 ( 3 ) of the Act , it will be binding on all the workmen of the establishment. If that be so , what is the effect of a settlement entered into by the management with one of the union representing the majority of the workmen employed by the managementmanagem and concerned in the dispute? Would that settlement bind the other union and workmen of the establishment? When an establishment has more than one union and there is trade union rivalry, possibility of those entering into negotiation inrespect of certain demands cannot be ruled out. It also happens that negotiations with one union in the course of conciliation proceedings may be succeeded and end in a settlement . While answering the question as to whether the settlement would bind the workmen of other union . the Apex Court held in Ramnagar Cane and Suger Co. Ltd. [ 1961 ( 1 ) LLJ 244 ] that such a settlement will bind the workmen of other union . Such a question came up for consideration in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 253 ] before Madras High Court The point for consideration in that case was whether the employee's union , the petitioner in that case , was competent to raise an industrial dispute in respect of a matter which was settled by a conciliation settlement by the management with another union recognized by the management . After referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. ( supra ) the High Court came to the conclusion that it was open to the management to enter into a settlement with the union representing the majority of workmen and that such a settlement will bind the other union as well as other workmen who were in employment or subsequently came in employment in the establishment .
16. A settlement arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings between the management and the union stand or different footing than the settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings . For an example , if an industrial establishment has two unions , say " A " and " B " , an agreement otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings between the management and workers of union " A " will be binding on the management and workers of union " A" only. But a settlement " arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings " will be binding on all the members of the other union who were not parties to the agreement as well asby virtue of Section 18 (3 ) ( d ) of the Act . See Britannia BiscuitCo. Ltd. Employees Union [ 1984 ( 1 ) LLJ 349 ] . Relying above law, it is concluded that settlement Ex.MW1/6 not only binds the Union but the claimant also . He cannot repudiate it .
17. Admittedly, his promotion was not based on depot-wise seniority. Hence, it is evident that his promotion was contrary to the settlement and instructions issued in pursuance thereof by the Corporation . In such a situation, correction of mistake by the Corporation , by way of issuance of letter dated 18-12-2007 , cannot be held to be illegal or unjustified . Appreciation letters , issued in favour of Shri Sanjay Paswan , may make his claim probable for promotion but cannot override terms of settlement arrived at on 07-11-2007 . Thus no justification lies in favour of the Union to claim that the Corporation was not competent to rescind order of promotion , issued in favour of Shri Sanjay Paswan on 17-12-2007 . Action ofthe Corporation is found to be legal and justified. Neither the Union nor Shri Paswan is entitled to any relief.
| भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1443
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23. 2013 /फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
AWARD
18. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is concluded thataction of the Corporation in cancelling promotion order of Shri Sanjay Paswan was legal and justified . Claim put forth by the Union is not sustainable . Same is , therefore , brushed aside . An award is passed in favour of the Corporation and against the Union .
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 13-12-2012
नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2013
National Anti Malaria Programme ( now known as Nationa! Vector Borne Disease Control Programme ) is being run by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare . Nirman Bhawan , New Delhi . Shri Satya Narain was engaged by the Director, National Anti Malaria Programme , Delhi , as a casual employee in September 1998 . His services were taken intermittently, in case of exigencies . In the year 2000 , he rendered 209 days services with the management . On Ist of September, 2001. his services were disengaged. He raised a demand for reinstatement . When his request was not conceded to, he filed a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L -42012 / 228 /2002 - IR ( CM - II ) , New Delhi , dated. 05-03-2003 , with following terms:
का.आ. 453. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन . ए. एम. पी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-42012/228/2002 आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
"Whether the action of the Director , National Anti Malaria Programme , discontinuing the services of Shri Satya Narain , Casual Labour / mali w.e.f. 01-09-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
New Delhi , the 24th January, 2013
S.O. 453. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 74/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Anti -Malaria Programme Ministry of Health , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013.
[No. L-42012/228/ 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Satya Narain pleading therein that he was employed by the management for the first time in September 1998. He was engaged for a period of 89days , which period was extended till 31-03-1999 . Thereafter , his services were illegally terminated by the management . However , he was engaged again on 01-05-1999 . He continuously worked with the management for a period of33 months and thereafter his services were again illegally terminated with effect from 01-09-2002 . No notice or pay in licu thereof was given to him . Disengagement of his service was in violation of provisions of labour laws . He raised a demand for reinstatement in service but it was not conceded to by the management . He claims that action of the management may be declared illegal and he may be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .
BEFORE DR . R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS
COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 74/2011
Shri Satya Narain
S/ o Sh.Rameshwar Singh R/ o N - 64/ 106 , Indra Basti , Timar Pur,
Delhi - 110054.
...Workman
Versus
The Director,
NationalAnti -Malaria Programme,
Ministry ofHealth , 22, Sham Nath Marg , NearI.P.College,
Delhi - 110054.
3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading therein that he was engaged as a casual labour for rendering job of mali . Job against which the claimant was engaged was of casual in nature. Claimant was engaged witheffect form 12-05-1999 and not from 01-05-1999 , as claimed by him . Since the work came to an end , his services could notbe continued . Claim put forward by the claimant that he continuously worked with the management for a period of 33 months, is uncalled for . He was engaged for seasonal job and not against any vacant Group " D " post . When requirement came to an end , he was not engaged any further. There was no occasion for the management to give notice or pay in lieu thereof. Claim put forward is uncalled for . It may be dismissed , being devoid of merits . pleads the management.
...Management PARI I SEC. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23.2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1444
4. Onpleadings of the parties . following issues were settled by my learned predecessor:
1. Whether the services of the workman were engaged for doing the job of casual or seasonal nature ? If so , its effect .
2. As in terms of reference .
uproot grass. Though the claimant tried to agitate that he was engaged as peon, but he conceded that work of mali was taken from him . According to the claimant , he used to weed out grass and look after the plants . On the other hand, management projects that he was a casual employee engaged in cases of exigencies only. Out of facts referred above , it nowhere emerges over the record that the claimant was engaged against any regular post .
5.Vide order No. Z - 22019 /6 / 2007-1R(C - II ) New Delhi dated 11-02-2008 , case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II , New Delhi by the appropriate Government . for adjudication .It was retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide order No. Z- 22019/6/2007- IR( C - II ) , New Delhi , dated 30-03-2011 .
6. Claimant has examined himself in support of his claim. Shri G..D . Khulbe , Administrative Officer, entered the witness box to rebut facts presented by the claimant. No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
7. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Mohammad Sohail , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri M. P. Singh , authorised representative , raised submissions on behalf of the management. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
Issue No. 1
11. Work of seasonal in nature would certainly appear to imply dependence on nature, over which obviously neither the employer nor the employees , in a given industrial establishment , has any control . Period of work in a normal year , in a given industrial establishment , is another factor to ascertain as to whether the work performed was of seasonal in nature . Whether the period of work is controlled by seasonal conditions, would be a factor for consideration , yet another factor relevant is the pattern of employment of labour in that industrial establishment . Even when particularly no work could be carried on in an industrial establishment , when seasonal conditions necessitated virtual stoppage of work, a skeleton establishment will necessarily have to be kept on . A body of workers , who are working only for a particular season of the year , in an industrial establishment would be termed as " seasonal employees " . A seasonal workman is engaged in a job which lasts during a particular season only, while a temporary workman may be engaged either for a work of temporary or casual nature or temporarily for work of a permanent nature , but a permanent workman is one , who is engaged in a work of permanent nature only. Adistinction between the permanent workman engaged on a work of permanent nature and a temporary workman engaged on a work of permanent nature is , in fact , that a temporary workman is engaged to fill in a temporary need of extra hands of the permanent jobs. Thus when a workman is engaged on a work of a permanent nature which lasts throughout the year, it is expected that he would continue there permanently, unless he is engaged to fill in a temporary need. Therefore , a workman is entitled to expect permanency of his service. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Jaswant Sugar Mill [ 1991 ( 1 ) LLJ 6491 .
8. In his affidavit dated 11-8-2005 , tendered as evidence , claimant swears that he was appointed as a casual labour for a period of 89 days in September 98 by the management. His services were extended till 31-0-1999. Thereafter his services were dispensed with . He protested against that arbitrary action . After a gap of one month , he was again engaged with effect from 01-05-1999 . Initially, he was engaged on daily wage of Rs . 82.30 which was later on increased to Rs . 111.35 per diem . During course of his cross examination , he projects that he was appointed as peon but had to work as a mali . His job was to weed out grass and look after the plants.
9. In affidavit Ex.MW1 /A , tendered as evidence , Shri Khulbey swears that the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis for work of mali . The job , against which he was engaged, was of seasonal in nature and lasted for a short period . He concedes that the name of the claimant was sponsored by the employment exchange as casual labour for a period of 89 days. He was engaged in case of exigency.
12. As per facts projected by the parties. National AntiMalaria Programme , now known as National Vector Born Disease Programme , is being run by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare , Nirman R¹wan , New Delhi . Shri G. D. Khulby highlights that the claimant was engaged as casual labour for the work of Mali , for removing grass , which is of casual or seasonal nature for a short period and not of perennial nature. Accordingly, services were not required after the period for which he was engaged . Work of Mali was not depending on nature which was beyond the control of the management . It was not such a work which may cease in a particular season or growup in other seasons . Vagaries of nature 10. When facts unfolded by the claimant as well as Shri Khulbey are appreciated, it came to light that the claimant was engaged for casual jobs . He was engaged to 1445
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
were not to control the work. Work of mali may be taken priodically but not in a particular season . It may be a work oftemporary nature. Therefore , engagement of the claimant as mali cannot be termed as engagement against seasonal work . The management has not been able to project that the claimant was engaged against a work of seasonal in nature . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the claimant and against the management .
Issue No. 2
13. Claimant presents in his claim that he was engaged as a peon against vacant post but he himself demolishes his case , when he testified that initially he was paid at the rate of Rs . 83.30 and subsequently his wages were increased to Rs . 111.55 per diem. Out of his own assertions , it is emerging over the record that the claimant was paid as daily wager. No evidence worth appreciation was projected by the claimant to show that he was engaged as a peon against a vacant post. Shri Khulbey asserts that he was engaged as a casual labour in case of exigencies . Therefore , it is evident that engagement of the claimant was as a casual labour. It is crystal clear that his engagement was not against any vacant post .
14. " Continuous Service " has been defined by section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) . Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said Section , "continuous service for a period " may comprise of two period viz . (i ) uninterrupted service , and ( ii ) interrupted service on account of ( a ) sickness , ( b ) authorized leave , (c) an accident , (d ) a strike which is not legal , (e ) a lock- out, and ( f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman , shall be included in the "continuous service " . Sub - section (2 ) of the said Section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in "continuous service " within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab.I.C.1180 ) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub - section ( 2 ) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the Section . The idea is that if within , a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service , then he must get the benefit conferredby the Act . Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment .
15. Claimant unfolds that he rendered continuous service from 01-05-99 till 01-09-2001 . With a view to
537 GI /2013-16
discharge onus resting on him and to substantiate his claim , he placed reliance on attendance record proved as Ex.MW1 /W1 to Ex.MW1 /W25 . When these documents are closely perused , it came to light that from June 2001 to July 2000, the claimant served for 230 days , and from June 2000 to July 1999, he rendered 233 days service only. These, documents project that the claimant had worked for shorter period with the management . Periods , referred above, do not answer the standards of continuous service provided under section 25 - B of the Act .
16. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [ 1970(2 ) LLJ 306] , Apex Court announced that when a workman renders continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar months , he is deemed to have completed one years service in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations made by the Apex Court in that regard , which are extracted thus :
"Under Section 25B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed one year's service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment . These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under Section 25B has further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in the service of the employer' for 240 days in the year " .
17. When the workman concerned fails to establish thathe worked for atleast 240 days in the year . he cannot claim protection against termination of his services in order to seek regularization of his services on monthly salary with benefits like pension , gratuity etc. Interruption of service occurred during the course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services . Fiction under Section 25B will operate if workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year . The explanation appended to Section 25 - B of the Act specifically includes the days on which workman was laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with full wages , or he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out ofand in the course of his employment and in the case of a female , maternity leave , under the expression 'actually worked ' used under sub - section 2 of Section 25 B of the Act . Question for consideration comes as to whether the words actually worked would not include holidays . Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid. Apex Court was comprehended with such a proposition in AmericanExpress Banking Corporation [ 1985 ( 2 ) LJ 539 ]. Itwas ruled therein that the expression actually worked under the employer ' , cannot mean those days only when the workman worked with hammer. sickle or pen . but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he 1446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-22012/147/2007- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2013 was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute , standing orders etc. Court ruled that Sundays and other holidays , would be comprehended in the words ' actual work ' and its countenanced the contention of the employer that only days which are mentioned in the explanation should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number of days on which the workmen had actually worked though he had not so worked and no other days . The court observed that the explanation is only clarificatory, as all explanations are , and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision . Precedent in Lalappa Lingappa [ 1981 ( 1 ) LJ 308 ] was distinguished by the Apex Court in the case referred above . The precedent was followed in Standard Motor products of India Ltd. [ 1986 ( 1 ) LJ 34 ) . Thus, it is crystal clear from the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be included in computing continuous service under Section 25B of the Act .
S. O. 454. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 63/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court . Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Monoharbahal Colliery of M / s . ECL. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013 .
[No. 1. -22012/147/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΛIK , Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Oflicer PARTIES: REFERENCE NO . 63 OF 2007
The management of Monoharbahal Colliery, M / s . ECL. Burdwan
Vs. The Gen. Secy. , KMC , Asansol ( WB ) REPRESENTATIVES : For the management : Shri P. K. Goswami , L.d. Advocate
For the union( Workman) : Shri S. K. Pandey, L.d. Representative
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal Dated -20-12-2012 AWARD
18. As detailed above , the claimant had not been able to establish that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his termination of his services . He could not establish that at any point of time he rendered continuous service of one year with the management . As such , claimant has not been able to acquire status of an industrial employee to seck benefit under the provisions of the Act . Section 25 -F of the Act makes it apparent that in order to seek benefit under the said provision, an employee should render atleast 240 days continuous service in a calendar year . As the claimant had not rendered any continuous service of one year with the management in any ofthe calendar years , provisions of Section 25-1F does not come into operation. He had not adduced any evidence to this effect that any junior to him was working , when his services were dispensed with . In such a situation , provisions of Section 25-G of the Act also does not come into play. No evidence worth name has brought that the management ever engaged someone else in the job of mali , after termination of his service . As such , provisions of Section 25 H of the Act also does not apply. In view of reasons detailed above, it is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. Action of the management in not engaging the services of the claimant any further is legal and justified . Claim put forward is liable to be dismissed . His claim is brushed aside . An award is passed in favour of the management and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate Governmentfor publication.
Dated: 29-11-2012 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2013 का.आ. 454. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के
In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/147/2007-1.R . ( CM - II ) dated 02-08-2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .
1447 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
SCHEDULE
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DELHI ID No. 199/2011
" Whether the action of the managemeent of Monoharbahal Colliery of M/s . ECL in dismissing Sri Bikash Bouri w.e.f. 03-05-2004 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"
TheGeneral Secretary,
Food Corporation of India Worker Union , 16 Ashoka Road ,
New Delhi - 110001 .
Workman
Versus
The Managing Director , Food Corporation of India, 16-20 , Barakhamba Lane , New Delhi - 110001 .
...Management
AWARD
Having received the Order of Letter No. L -22012/ 147/2007 - I.R . ( CM - II) dated 02-08-2007 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 63 of2007 was registered on 14-08-07 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Onperusal of the case record , it has been found that Sri S.K. Pandey, Ld . Representative for the workman , submits that the workman Sri Bikash Bouri has already joined in service , so the case may be closed . Since the workman has already joined in service , it seems that he has now no more interest to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 455. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 199/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Fringe benefit, relating to cost of revenue stamp to be borne by Food Corporation of India ( in short the Corporation) when employees were to receive their wages against duly stamped receipt , was granted in favour of departmentalized labour, vide bipartite agreement dated 23-05-1973 . Another memorandum of settlement was signed on 24-05-1984 wherein it was reiterated that cost of revenue stamp would be borne by the Corporation , when employees would receive their wages against duly stamped receipt . Circular No.11 /99 was issued on 23/26-07-1999by the Corporation in that regard . In the year 2000 , circular No. 6/2000 was issued on 14-01-2000 , when the Corporation decided not to bear expenditure towards cost of revenue stamp , affixed on acquaintance rolls with effect from 01-04-2000 . Aggrieved by the said circular, FCI Workers ' Union ( in short the union ) raised a demand to recall it . When the demand was not conceded to , an industrial dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested the claim , conciliation proceedings ended into a failure . On consideration of failure report , submitted by the ConciliationOfficer , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order No.L -22012/18 /2001-1R ( CM - II) , New Delhi dated 31-07-2001 with following terms:
[सं. एल-22012/ 18/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2013
"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in withdrawing the facility of bearing the cost of revenue stamps for the payment received by the workers of FCI in violation of Item No.10 of the Bipartite agreement dated 24-05-1973 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief workers are entitled to . "
S.O. 455. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 199/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, Zonel Office ( North) , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013 .
2. Claim statement was filed by the union pleading therein that an agreement was entered into between the Corporation and the union on 23-05-1973 wherein it was agreed that the Corporation shall make payment for work done by the workers on identification by sardars on [No. L-22012/ 18 /2001 - IR ( CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
1448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
submission of duly receipted acquaintance rolls . Cost of borne by the Corporation in future. The circular was
revenue stamp was to be borne by the Corporation . Terms implemented and more than 95 % of the workers had
ofsettlement were put in operation . Similarly, memorandum adopted and switched over to the system, so notified.
of settlement was signed between the Corporation and There was no resistance from other set of the employees
the union on 24-05-84 , wherein provisions for bearing cost too. Bearing cost of revenue stamp by the Corporation is
of revenue stamps by the Corporation were made . The not a condition of service , as enumerated in the Forth
Corporation introduced direct payment system in Punjab Schedule , appended to the Act . Therefore , it was not
region and signed bipartite agreement on 05-04-1995 in required to give statutory notice , as provided by Section
thatregard . Circular No. 11/99 was issued on 23 /26-07-99 9A of the Act . The Corporation , being a statutory body, is
wherein it was mentioned that on duly receipted also under an obligation to carry out observations made
acquaintance roll , cost of revenue stamp would be borne by the Comptroller and Auditor General . It is claimed that
by the Corporation. Thus , cost of revenue stamp to be there is no case in favour of the union and the claim put
forth may be dismissed.
borne by the Corporation , on duly receipted acquaintance
roll , became a condition of service . The Corporation 6. In rejoinder, union reiterates the facts pleaded in
unilaterally withdrew the fringe benefit of bearing cost of the claim statement.
revenue stamp , vide circular No. 6 of 2000 dated
14-1-2000 . Provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial 7. Vide order No.Z-22012/ 6/2007-1R(C- II ), New Delhi
Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) were not complied dated 11-02-2008 , case was transferred to Central
with. Action of the Corporation in unilateral withdrawal of Government Industrial Tribunal No. II , New Delhi , for
the said privilege is not only violation of provisions of adjudication by the appropriate Government . It was
Section 9A of the Act but illegal and unjustified . It has retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the
been claimed that the fringe benefit of bearing cost of appropriate Government , vide order No. Z-22012/6/2007-
revenue stamp by the Corporation should continue and IR(C- II), New Delhi , dated 30-03-2011 .
an award may be passed accordingly. 8. On receipt of the case on transfer, notice was
3.Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading sent to the union by registered post on 06-09-2011 calling
that it was bound to give effect to the provisions of Section upon it to appear before the Tribunal on 11-10-2011 . Neither
30 of the Indian Stamps Act and being a statutory body notice was received back nor it came to the notice of the
cannot act in contravention of statutory requirements . Tribunal that there was any disturbance in the work of
Impugned circular has been issued in conformity with the postal authorities in September and October 2011 .
statutory provisions . If there is any change in conditions Therefore every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
of Service , the said change does not fall within the ambit postal authorities delivered the notice to the General
of Section 9A of the Act . The Corporation is also bound to Secretary of the union . Despite service , none came
comply with objections raised by the Comptroller and forward on behalf of the union to prosecute the claim .
Auditor General , while auditing its accounts . Constrained by these facts and absence of representation
4.The Corporation presents that Shri Umesh Gupta, ofthe union on 10-10-2011 , 18-11-2011 , 29-12-2011and
Organizing Secretary of the union, has no locus standi to 06-12-2012 , the Tribunal was constrained to proceed with
raise the dispute. Shri H.P. Singh , General Secretary ofthe the matter under rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central )
union, was restrained by the High Court of Delhi in suit Rules 1957.
No. 681/99 to represent the union . The other group of
workers . viz . Sharif Hussain and others , including 9. The Corporation tendered affidavit of Shri Tej
Shri Umesh Gupta , have also been restrained to act and Singh as evidence . Since none came forward on behalf
represent as representatives of the union by the High of the union, hence no opportunity could be accorded to
Court of Delhi in suit No. 2349 of 2000. The Corporation the union to purify contents of the affidavit by an ordeal
pleads that the present reference was raisedby an ofcross-examination .
incompetent person and claim statement has also been 10. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Om
signed by an incompetent and unauthorized person . The Prakash , authorized representative , advanced arguments
Corporation nowhere disputes signing of settlement dated onbehalf ofthe Corporation . None came forward to raise
23-05-73 wherein it was decided that payment of wages submissions on behalf of the union. I have given my careful
would be made by the Corporation to the employees on considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and
being identified by sardars , on submission of duly cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues
receipted acquaintance rolls . involved in the controversy are as follows :
5. Issuance of circular No. 11/2000 is also not
disputed. However, it has been claimed by the Corporation 11. At the outset , Shri Om Prakash argued that the
that grace period of 90 days was given to switch over to dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer by
the proposition that cost of revenue stamp would not be Shri H. K. Sharma , General Secretary of the union. High
[ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1449 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
dispute " or not , it must first be determined whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of clause ( s) of section 2 of the Act .
Court of Delhi in suit No. 681 of 1999 had restrained Shri H. P. Singh to act and represent as General Secretary of the union . According to Shri Om Prakash , Shri H. P. Singh was not competent to raise the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. His second limb of attack was that Shri Umesh Gupta, Organizing Secretary of the union , was also not competent to file claim statement before this Tribunal . Shri Gupta was also restrained to act and represent as representative of the union by the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 23-10-2000 passed in suitNo. 2349 of 2000. As such , filing of claim statement is also incompetent. He submitted that the dispute has not been espoused by suitable number of workers , working in the establishment of the Corporation . He concludes that on account of this infirmity, dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute . According to Shri Om Prakash , since the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
15. The object of the Act is to protect workman against victimization by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The Act , however, does not provide for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests . Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial adjudication , keeping in view the social and economic conditions , the needs of the workmen , the requirement of the industry, social justice , relative interests of the parties and common good . These norms have given rights to the industrial employees what may be called industrial rights. as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining . This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of employers and a bonafide labour union. Policy behind this is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour practices . What imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an " industrial dispute " is that it affects the right of the workman as a class .
12. Since the Corporation claims that the dispute referred for adjudication has not acquired status an industrial dispute , it is expedient to consider the definition of the phrase " industrial dispute " . The Act defines industrial dispute in section 2( k ) , which definition is extracted thus :
" industrial dispute " means any dispute or difference between employers 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 employment or withthe conditions of labour , of any person ;
13. The definition of " Industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts, viz. ( i ) factum of dispute , ( 2 ) parties to the dispute , viz . ( a) employers and cmployers , (b ) employer and workmen , or ( c) workmen and workmen, ( 3 ) subject matter of the dispute, which should be connected with ( i) employment or non- employment, or ( ii ) terms of employment , or ( iii ) condition of labour of any person , and (4) it should relate to an "industry".
16. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of " industrial dispute" in Dimakuchi Tea Estate ( 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500) and ruled that the expression " any person " in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such limitation and qualification as arise from the context , the two crucial limitations are ( i ) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause ) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2 ) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose employment , non - employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour, as case may be , the parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest . Where workman raised a dispute as against their employment , the person regarding whose employment, non -employer, terms of employment or conditions of labour, the dispute israised need not be strictly speaking " workman " within the meaning of the Act , but must be one in whose employment , non employer, terms of employment , or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest . The observations made by the Apex Court are to be extracted thus :
"We also agree with the expression " any person " is not co - extensive with any workman , particular or otherwise , equal with other, that the crucial test is one of community of interest and the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment , non -employment , terms of employment , conditions of labour ( as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or 14. The definition of " industrial dispute" is worded in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the meaning given to word " workman " it would seem to include all " employers " , all " employments " and all "workmen " , whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be . Therefore , except in the case where there can be a dispute between the employers and employers and workmen and workmen , one of the parties to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of employees . The first point , therefore , to be noted, perhaps self evident , is that the phrase " employer and workmen " , the plural may include singular on either side or any permutation of singular or plural , the masculine including the feminine . In order, therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an " an industrial PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23.2013 PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1450
substantial interest . Whether such direct or substantial interest has been established in a particular case will depend on its facts and circumstances .
dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial number of workmen . Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper ( Pvt . ) Limited [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 132 ] . However in Western India Match Company [ 1970 ( 11 ) LLJ 256 ] , the Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea Estate's case [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ) and ruled that a dispute relating to "any person becomes a dispute where the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment , non employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour, the parties , dispute for a direct or substantial interest" .
19. What a substantial or considerable number of workmen would be in a given case . depend on particular facts of the case . The fact that an "industrial dispute " , is supported by other workmen will have to be established either in the form of a resolution of the union of which workman may be member or of the workmen themselves who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an "industrial dispute " concerning an individual workman is referred for adjudication , has on its roll a few of the workmen of the establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted into an "industrial dispute " . The Tribunal has therefore , to consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman by participating in the particular resolution of the union . In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal , it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. Nevertheless , in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute , it is not necessary that there should always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number ofworkmen. What is necessary is that there should be some express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman as their own cause . Lawto this eftect was laid in P.Somasundrameran [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] .
17 In Kyas Construction Company ( Pvt . ) Ltd. ( 1958 ( 2 ) 1.1.3 660 | Арex Court ruled that an industrialdispute need not be a dispute between the employer and his workman and that the definition of the expression industrial dispute " is wide enough to cater a dispute raised by the employer's workman with regard to non employment of others , who may not be employed as workman at the relevant time . The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalist [ 1961 ( II ) LI.J 436 ] has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute , the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen ofthe employer against whom , the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workinen. In order , therefore , to convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute , it has to be established that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of the employees of the establishment . As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is concerned , the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman . But difficulty arise when the cause of a workman , in a particular establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the workman of that establishment but is one of which membership is open to workmen of their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has only microscopic number of the workmen as its member , cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . A representative character of the union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co workers sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment in which the concerned workman was employee were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were connected together and arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively submitted the dispute.
18. The expression " industrial disputes " has been construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes , because of the scheme of the Act . In Raghu Nath Gopal Patvardhan [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 27 ] the Apex Court ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute . It was laid thereon that ( 1 ) a dispute between the employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial dispute , (2 ) it cannot be per - se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number ofworkmen . In Dharampal Prem Chand [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 668 ] it was commanded by the Apex Court that a
20. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is aregistered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual workmen themselves . But . their case was subsequently taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co- workmen, if not a majority of them . Since this union was not registered or recognized the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1451
these disputes were not taken up by a registered or other group of workers namely, Shri Sharif Hussian and
recognized union does not mean that they were not others who claim themselves to be representatives of the
"industrial dispute" .
union , including Shri Umesh Gupta, were also restrained
21. It is not expedient that same union should remain to act and represent as representative of the union , by the
incharge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute HighCourt ofDelhi in suit No. 2349 of2000. The dispute
may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment , has not been raised by substantial number of workmen
through a particular union for making such a dispute an and as such it has not acquired status of an industrial
" industrial dispute " , while the workman may be dispute.
represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 24. In para4 of rejoinder, the union nowhere disputes
36 of the Actby a member of executive or office bearer of that Shri H.P. Singh was restrained by the High Delhi to
altogether another union . The crux of the matter is that the actasGeneral Secretary, vide its order dated 5-07-2000 . It
dispute should be a dispute between the employer and has also not been disputed that Shri Umesh Gupta and
his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be others were also restrained to act and represent as
cspoused or conducted only by a registered trade union . representatives of the union . However, it has been claimed
Evenif a trade union ceases to be registered trade union therein that Shri Umesh Gupta continues to be organizing
during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings secretary of the union , on the basis of elections held in
thatwould not affect the maintainability of the order of 1998. Though such pleading has been raised by the union ,
reference . Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of butnone came forward to substantiate that Shri Umesh
Orissa in Gammon India Limited [ 1974 ( II ) LLJ 34 ] . For Gupta can work as Organizing Secretary of the union , on
ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has thebasis of elections held in 1998 .
acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is 25. Even otherwise , there is other facet of the coin .
whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken
The union nowhere disputes that issue was raised before
up as supported by the union of the workmen of the
the Conciliation Officer by Shri H.P. Singh challenging
employer against whom the dispute is raised by the contents of circular No. 6 of 2000 , who was under
individual workman or by an appreciable number of the command, issued by the High Court of Delhi notto act as
workman. In other words , the validity of the reference of General Secretary of the union . Order passed by the High
anindustrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they Court, restraining Shri H.P. Singh to act as General
stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on Secretary of the union , has been placed over the record.
the date when the cause occurs . Reference can be made Therefore it is evident that Shri H.P. Singh was
to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. incompetent to raise the issue before the Conciliation
[ 1970 ( II ) LLJ 256 ] .
Officer . Order dated 23-10-2000 , restraining Shri Umesh
22. A long line of decisions, handed down by the Gupta and others to represent and act as officer bearers of
Apex Court , had established that in individual dispute theunion has also been placed over the record . Therefore
could not per se be an industrial dispute, but could become ithas emerged over the record that Shri Singh as well as
one if it was taken up by a trade union or a considerable Shri Gupta were restrained by the High Court of Delhi
number of workmen of the establishment . This position from acting and representing as General Secretary or
of law created hardship for individual workmen , who representative of the union , as the case may be . Hence.
were discharged, dismissed , retrenched or whose services neither Shri Singh nor Shri Gupta was competent to raise
were otherwise terminated when they could not find the dispute or file claim statement on behalf of the union .
support by a union or any appreciable number of, workman 26. No evidence worth name has been brought over
to espouse their cause . Section 2A was engrafted in the the record that a considerable number of workers did join
Act by the Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read
as an extension of the definition of industrial dispute together to espouse the dispute. Consequently, it is
contained in clause ( k) of section 2 of the Act . Thusby apparent that the dispute had not acquired status of an
way of extension of definition of industrial dispute , by industrial dispute . When the dispute has not acquired
insertion of section 2A of the Act , thedispute of an status of an industrial dispute , appropriate Government
individual workman connected with or arising out of his was not competent to refer it for adjudication . The dispute.
discharge, dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination which has not acquired status of an industrial dispute .
of his service by his employer has been brought within would not givejurisdiction to this Tribunal for adjudication .
the ambit of the Act . onbeing referred by the appropriate Government . In view
of these facts , this Tribunal refrains its hands from
23.With this prelude in mind , I will turn to the factual adjudicatory process . Question raised in reference order
matrix of the controversy. Shri Tej Singh swears in his are not answered , for want of jurisdiction . An award is
affidavit, tendered as evidence , that the present dispute passed, accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate
was raisedby Shri H. P. Singh , who has no locus standi Government for publication .
to raise the dispute. High Court of Delhi in suit No. 681 of
99 has restrained Shri H.P. Singh to act and represent as Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
General Secretary of the union . He further details that the Dated:02-01-2013
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1452
नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 456. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 213/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
referred to as the Regulations ) and nomenclature of above posts was changed to Assistant Manager (Hindi ) and mode of recrutment was also amended as 50% of those posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion . In 1991 itself one more post of Assistant Reader ( Hindi ) fell vacant , since Shri S. Dayal , Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) retired in that year . This post was also converted to the post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) and thus total cight vacancies were to be filled in by the Corporation , out of which 50% were to be filled in by way ofdirect recruitment and 50 % by way of promotion .
[सं. एल-22012/27/1995-- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 456. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 213 / 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in retation tothe management of FCI , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 28-01-2013.
[No. 1.- 22012/27/ 1995 - IR ( C- II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DELHI
ID No. 213/2011
The Addl . General Secretary , FCI Employees Congress , H.No. 39 , Dayanand Block, Shakarpur Extn.. Delhi - 110092
....Workman
2. In its meeting held on 10-10-1991 , the Board of Directors of the Corporation converted all existing category- II direct recruitment quota up to 31-12-2001 , other than reserved for SC / ST category as promotional posts to be filled in from amongst the cligible incumbents . In pursuance ofthis decision , two posts ofAssistant Manager (Hindi ), out of four posts kept for direct recruitment , were released for promotion , keeping two posts of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) to be filled in by promotion . A panel of candidates was prepared by the Corporation for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) against the year, 1991. This Act of the Corporation irked Food Corporation of India Employees Congress ( hereinafter referred to as the Union) . A demand was raised by the Union that panel , so prepared for five posts against the year 1991 , may be scrapped since those posts were available in the year 1988 . Itwas claimed for those five posts panel may be prepared as against the year 1988 , for which panel ACRs for the year 1985, 86 and 1987 only may be considered . This demand of the Union was rejected by the Corporation . Aggrieved by that action of the Corporation , the Union raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On cosideration of the report, submitted by the Concilition Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. 22012/ 27 / 95 - IR (C - 11 ) New Delhi dated 13-7-1995 with following terms:---
Versus
The Zonal Manager , F.C.I. Ansal Bhawan . K.G. Marg, New Delhi .
"Whether the action of the management of FCI in not preparing the promotional panel for the post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) , originally sactioned in the year 1988 in 1991 is justfied ? If not to what relief the aggrieved employees are entitled ? "
.....Management
AWARD
3. Claim statement was filed by the union projecting therein that initially the issue was r ... sed individually by the workmaen and subsequently the matter taken up by the union . This issue was raised for the first time in December 1991 and subsequently in January 1994. Various letters were addressed to Zonal Manager ( North ) of the Corporation but to no avail. Ultimately, issue was addressed to in the Joint meeing held in 1994. wherein negative attitude was reflected by the Corporation . It was mentioned in the minutes that the post of Assistant Food Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) had created seven posts of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) , vide order No. 11/88 dated 8-4-1988 . Those posts were to be filled by way of diect recruitment . The Corporation did not fill those posts , since instructions were issued in that regard vide Headquarters instruction dated 11-7-1988 . On 11-3-1991 by notification No. 56 , published in Gazette of India, amendment was made by the Corporation in its Food Corporation of India ( Staff) Regulation 1971 (hereinafter [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) )
1453
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
Manager (Hindi ) was created in the year 1991 after amendment of the regulations and it was not feasible to consider the demand raised by the Union for preparation ofpromotional panel in the year 1988. The Union claims that 7 posts of Assistant Editor (Hindi ) were created on 8-4-1988 , recruitment process for those posts was kept in abeyance till 1991. Though subsequently nomenclature of the posts was changed , yet virtualy the posts remained the same which were created on 8-4-1988 . Since no new vacancies were created in 1991 , hence promotional panel against the year 1991 could not be drawn . It was so done bythe Corporation to cover up junior-most incunbent with merely 3 years service at the cost of senior most , having more than 20 years service to their credit . Act of the Corporation is malpractice , which resulted in prejudice to the senior most employees . The Union pleads that this Tribunal may order for review of the promotional panel , prepared for the posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) , commanding the Corporation to prepare panel for the year 1988 , wherein ACRs of the incumbents for years 1985 , 1986 and 1987 only may be taken into consideration .
4. Itwould not be out of place to mention here that the claim statement filed by the Union is verbose and it is almost difficult to make out head and tail of the facts presented therein. With difficult one would be able to grasp the real issue raised by the Union in the claim statement .
5. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading thatseven posts of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) were created vide order No. 11/88 dated 8-4-1988 . Those posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment. Those posts were not filled in till 12-3-1991 , as per instructions issued on 11-7- 1988. With previous sanction of the Central Government , the Corporation amended its regulation and nomenclature of posts of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) was changed to Assistant Manager ( Hindi) . Mode of recruitment was also amended and it was provided that 50% of the posts would be filled by direct recruitment and 50%by way of promotion. In 1991 itself one more post ofAssistant Editor (Hindi) had fallen vacant on account of retirement of Shri S. Dayal Assistant Editor ( Hindi) in that year. Amendment ofregulations came into effect from 12-3-1991 . The post of Assistant Editor (Hindi ) which had been vacant in 1991 was also converted into the post of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) thus making total 8 vacancies for that post . Thus there were 8 vacancies of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) on 12-3-1991 , which vacancies did not exist earlier. Out of these 8 vacancies , 4 were kept for direct recruitment and 4 psots were released for promotion. Later on , the Board of Directors , in its meeting held on 10-10-1991 , converted all existing catefory II direct recruitment quota posts up to 31-12-1991 , other than those reserved for SC/ST to promotion quota to be filled by way of promotion . In pursuance of this decision , 2 posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi) , out of 4 posts kept for direct recrutment quota ,
537 GI/2013-17
were released for promotion thereby taking post available for promotion to 6 in number . The Corporation prepared a promotional panel for the year 1991 , which is in consonance with the rules . It does not lie in the mouth of the Union to claim that for preparation of panel for promotion in the year 1991 ACRs of the freumbents for year 1985 , 1986 and 1987 only were to be considered. Claim putforward is baseless, hence itmay bediscarded, projects the Corporation .
6. Vide order No. Z -22019/6/2007 - IR( C- II) . New Delhi dated 11-02-2008 , case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , New Delhi , for adjudication , by the appropriate Government . It was retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government , vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007- IR(C- II ) , New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 .
7. Shri Lakshman Sahijwani was examined by the Corporation in September 1997 to project its case . Shri Sri Krishan Raghav the General Secretary of the Union , also tendered his affidavit to establish the case . None came forward on behalf of the Corpoartion to purify contents of the affidavit of Shri Raghav by an ordeal of cross- examination . No other witness was examined by the either ofthe parties .
8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the claiment Union . None came forward on behalf of the Corporation to raise submissions in the matter. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :-
9. In his affidavit dated 30-12-1990 , tendered as evidence , Shri Sri Krishan Raghav swears that 7 posts of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) were created by the Corporation , vide sanctioned order No. 11/88 dated 8-4-1988 . Vide Telex dated 11-7-1988 , the Headquater conveyed to the Zonal Manager (North ) that recruitment process for the same may be kept in abeyance . Vide notification No. 56 datod 11-3-1991 , posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi) were created, which posts were to be filled in 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment . The above posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) were created by changing the nomenclature of the posts of Assistant Editor (Hindi ) . One vacancy for the post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) arose on account of superannuation of Shri S. Dayal on 31-12-1990. There were seven posts in 1988 and one post fell vacant in 1991 on superannuation ofShri S. Dayal . Panel for promotion to 7 posts was to be drawn against the year 1988 , by taking into account ACRS ofthe incumbents for the year 1985 , 86 and 1987 , while panel for one vacancy could be drawn against the year 1991 by taking into consideration ACRs of the incumbents 1454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23. 2013. PHALGUNA 4. 1934
PART 11 S. 3 ( it)
for years 1988 , 89 and 1990. Inspite of abiding by the instructions , the Corporation arbitrarily drew consolidated panel in the year 1991 , in order to serve vested interests . Thus the junior most even with 3 years' service was empanelled at the cost of those having more than 20 years service to their credit . This ill- motivated bid was resorted to with an intention to jeopardize interest of seniors by forming a panel against the year 1991 , while ACRs for years 1988 , 1989 and 1990 could be taken into consideration for forming a panel against one vacancy only which occured in the year 1991 .
to the incumbent already in the service of the Corporation . On 11-7-1988 instructions were issued for the Zonal Manager ( Noth) to keep recruitment process in abeyance for those posts . if not initiated by then. It has also not been disputed that till 11-7-1988 recruitment porcess was not initiated by the Zonal Manager ( North ) of the Corporation . Hence recruitment process was kept on abeyance till dicision to create posts of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) with promotional channel was taken. With previous sanction of the Central Government , the Corporation amended the Regulations and notification No. 56 dated 11-3-1991 was published in Gazette.on the strength of which posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) were created . tobe filled 50%byway of promotion and 50º by way of directrecruitment. Thus for the first time in March , 1991 . incumbents who were in service of the Corporation , acquired a right for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) . Till the regulations were amended neither post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) was in existence nor a right of promotion was available against the post of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) . Posts of Assistant Manager (Hindi) were created in 1991 only . It cannot be said that right of promotion accrued retrospectively with effect from 11-4-1988 , when seven posts of Assistant Editor (Hindi ) were created . Therefore claim of the Union , that panel ought to have been prepared for the post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) against the year 1988 , is uncalled for.
10. Shri Lakshman Sahijwani unfolds in his affidavit Ex. MW1 / 1 tendered as evidence , that 7 posts of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) were created in the year 1988 , vide order No.11/88 dated 8-4-1988 . Those posts were in Zonal Office (North), Regional Office - Delhi , Regional Office - Lucknow, Regional Office- Jaipur , Regional Office - Haryana at Chandigarh , Regional Office - Shimla and Regional Office- Punjab at Chandigarh . The mode of recruitment of these posts was cent present by direct recruitment , as per appendix part ( X) annexed with the Regulation. Vide telex received on 11-7-1988 , recruitment process for those posts was kept in abeyance till decision to create posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) with promotional channel was to be taken. Till 11-7-1988 , no process for recruitment was initiated . On 12-3-1991 regulations were amended and nomenclature of the post Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) was converted to Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) . Mode of recruitment was also changed , since 50% posts were to be filled by direct recrritment and 50 % by promotion . Thus a rightof promotion was created after 1991 and not earlier. The Board of Directors , in their meeting held on 10-10-1991 , converted the existing category- II direct recruitment quota posts , other than reserved for SC/ST to promotion quota . One more post of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) was added on account of superannuation of Shri S.Dayal . Thus total 6 posts of Assistant Manager (Hindi ) were to be filled by way of promotion, while 2 posts were reserved for SC/ST . All these 6 posts were filled by promotion in 1991. No right of promotion accrued to anybody in 1998 and these posts were to be filled by direct recruitment in that year and there was no provision of promotion. Promotional panel of 1991 is correct and valid . When facts detailed in the affidavit were purified by any odeal of cross examination , the Union could not dispel those facts,
11. When facts unfolded by Shri Sri Krishan Raghav and Shri Lakshman Sahijwani are closely perused, it came to light that in the year 1988 , 7 posts of Assistant Editor (Hindi) were created vide order No. 11/88 dated 11-4-1988 . Those posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment . In case process of recruitment would have been initiated in 1988 , not even a single post was available for promotion
12. Claimant Union raiseddispute relating to preparation of a promotional panel , by way of consideration of ACRs of the incumbents for years 1985 . 86 and 1987 only . The dispute raised by the Union is an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2 ( k ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) , when the Corporation failed to give promotion to its employees to the posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) and the matter was taken up by the fellow workmen . The question whether a person has been superseded or not or whether he is entitled to the promotion or not would also be comprehended in the words " employment or non- employment " accruing in section 2 ( k ) of the Act . Promotion in the course of industrial employment is the prerogative of the management , as held by the Apex Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. [ 1974 ( 1 ) LLJ 1964 ] . It is matter of discretion of the management to select persons for promotions , held Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court inBrookeBond ( India) (Pvt . ) Ltd. | 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 256 ] . But three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1984 Lab. 1.C. 1573 ) suggested that it is time reconsider this archaic view of laissez faire days where promotion was considered as management function because the whole gamut of labour legislation is to check, control and circumscribe uncontrolled managerial exercise of power with a viewto eschew the inherent arbitrariness in exercise of such functions . However, law laid in Brooke Bond India Pvt. Ltd. ( supra) rules the field . It was laid therein that
[ भाग II -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1455
though promotion is a managerial function, " it may be again and to promote the eligible employees . But even
recognized that there may be occasions when a tribunal after finding of malafide or victimization , it is not within
may have to interfere with promotion made by the the competence of the Tribunal to consider merits of
management where it is felt that persons superseded have various employee and then to decide to whom to promote.
been so superseded on account of malafides or See Brook Bonde India Pvt . Ltd. ( supra) .
victimization " .
16. Whether the Union could project that the action
13. Promotion generally necessitated consideration inpreparation of the panel in the year 1991 was based on
of competitive suitability of the eligible workmen and such malafide , unfair labour practice or victimization ? No fact at
selection process would require the consideration not only allwasprojected by Shri Raghav to show that Corporation
ofthe past performance of those eligible but necessitates acted with malafide or it has victimized someone , whom
making of comparative estimate of their skill , sometimes of they disliked on account of his union activities or
technical nature , their personality, capacity to discharge otherwise . No facts were projected by him to give even an
heavier responsibilities and similar other factors . Whether idea that the Corporation indulged in unfair labour practice,
a particular employee should be promoted from one grade when the panel was prepared in the year 1991. Seniority
to higher grade depends not only on the length of service and merit ordinarily have a part in promotion to higher
but also his efficiency and other qualifications for the ranks but seniority and merit should tamper each other .
posttowhich he seeks to be promoted and in the matter of The employer normally insists on the criteria ofmerit-cum-
promotion, intimate knowledge of the higher authority, seniority and it cannot be questioned unless it smacks of
empowered to promote , have greater value . Seniority plays malafide , unfair labour practice or victimization . As pointed
only a small part in the matter of promotion . In the absence out above , the Union has not been able to give even a hint
of any malafide , unfair labour practice or victimization , relating to malafide acts , unfair labour practice or
discretion of the management cannot be questioned . victimization. Therefore , action of the Corporation cannot
Reference can be made to the precedent in Reserve Bank be questioned on the count that managerial discretion
of India ( 1965 (2 ) LLJ 175 ] . was exercised with malafide .
14. When malafide , unfair labour practice or 17. There is other facet of the coin . Incumbents ,
victimization is alleged by the workmen , adjudicator will who were empanelled for promotion were not summoned
have to enquire whether granting of withholding of certain by the Tribunal either suo motu or at the instance of the
promotion is malafide or act of unfair labour practice or Union to project their cause. Thus , it is evident that they
victimization . If he finds that the promotions in question had no opportunity to present facts before this Tribunal .
have beenmade, which are unjustified on any one ofthese An award interferring with the promotion of workman
grounds , appropriate course for him is to set aside the without giving notice to him , would be invalid, in as much
promotions and ask the employer to consider the cases of as it would be violative of the rules of natural justice ,
superseded employees and decide for himself whom to announced High Court of Delhi in Shyam Lal ( 1973 9 Lab .
promote after considering the records of the employees I.C. 957 ) . In case award of the Tribunal affects status of
worth consideration , except of course the persons whose another person , that other person must be impleaded as a
promotions have been set aside . In other words , when the party to the proceedings and should be given an
Tribunal finds that some workers are superseded on opportunity of being heard before an award adverse to
account of legal malafide , it may have to cancel the him is made . Law to this effect was laid down in Jaswant
promotions made by employer. See Williamson Magro & Singh ( 1987 Lab. I.C. 663 ) . Since persons empanelled for
Co.[ 1982 ( 1 ) LLJ 32 ] .
promotion were not heard over the matter, an award adverse
to them cannot be made .
15. The Tribunals are intended to adjudicate
industrial disputes between the management and the 18.As detailed above , Regulations were amended,
workmen, settle them and pass effective awards in such a in March , 1991 and posts of Assistant Manager ( Hindi )
way that industrial peace between the employees and the were created with right to promotional avenues of the
employer may be maintained so that there can be more incumbents for 50% of those posts . Subsequently, posts
productions and benefit of all conerned . For the above
meantfor direct recruitment quota , other than those meant
purpose , industrial tribunal , as far as practicable , shall not for SC /ST candidates , were converted to promotional
be constrained or formulate rules of laws and avoid any quota. This exercise took place in the year 1991 only. Prior
inability to arrive at an effective award of justice in a to that neither post of Assistant Manager ( Hindi ) was in
particular dispute . In view of the findings , first of all it existence nor right of promotion was available against the
should be declared that the promotions were illegal and post of Assistant Editor ( Hindi ) . Consequently, till 1991
unjustified being an act of arbitrary action of the the incumbents already in service of the Corporation were
management and cancel those promotions . Thereafter, the having no right of promotion to the post of Assistant
Tribunal should ask the management to consider the cases Manager (Hindi ) or Assistant Editor ( Hindi) . When those
[ PART 11 ---SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23. 2013 /PHALGUNA 4. 1934
1456
New Delhi , the 28th January , 2013
S.O. 457. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/1999 & 55/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure. in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2013.
posts came into existence for the purpose of promotion in 1991. how can the Union expect that ACRs of the incumbents for years 1988. 89 and 1990 may not be considered . If any incumbent loses efficiency or earns low credit in his work in 1988 , 89 and 1990 or any of the years , he washes away his right of promotion also . Therefore the claim put forward by the Union that ACRs for the years 1988. 89 and 1990 ought not have been considered for preparation of promotional panel is not only unjustified but against the norms of administrative expediency als . Such claims cannot be entertained.
[No. 1. -22012/75 / 1998 - IR ( C - II ) , No. 1. -22012/74/ 1998 - IR ( C - II) ]
Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΛIK . Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 2 ) AT DHANBAD
SHRI KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer
Reference No. 54 of 1999
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India , Tatisilwai Ranchi and their workmen .
[Ministry's Order No. L - 22012 / 75/ 98-1R ( CM - 11 ) dated 22-1-1999 with]
Reference No. 55 of 1999
19. One other facet is to be considered . An incumbent has only a right for consideration for promotion but no right of promotion . As pointed out above , promotion is a managerial function which is to be exercised by way of objective satisfaction of the higher authority . In the matter of promotion intimate knowledge of the higher authority about efficiency and integrity of an employee has greater value . Therefore a senior most person working with an employer has no right to claim promotion in case he lacks efficiency, intergrity and knowledge of work . A right to be considered for promotion is not to be confined with a mere chance of promotion because chance of promotion is not a condition of service . It seems that the Union belabored under a belief that in case ACRs for years 1988 , 89 and 1990 would have been considered , Shri Raghav ought to have got a chance of promotion . Such apprehensions or expectations have no place in legal arena . Case of the Union is discarded on that count too .
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India, Tatisilwai Ranchi and their workmen .
[Ministry's Order No. L - 22012 /74/ 98 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 22-1-19981
APPEARANCES IN BOTH THE ABOVE CASES :
Mr. Chandrika Pd. I d. Adv.
Onbehalf of the workmen :
20. In view of the reasons detailed above , it is apparent that the Union could not project a case worth indulgence by this Tribunal . The case is a fait accompli . Claim put forward is , accordingly, brushed aside . An award is passed in favour of the Corporation and against the Union . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Junior to Mr. B.M.Pd.
Onbehalf of the management :
Dated: 18-12-2012
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Food
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated, Dhanbad , the 27th December , 2012
नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order referred to above .
SCHEDULE IN
का.आ. 457.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 54/99 व 55/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
REFERENCE NO . 54 OF 1999
[सं. एल -22012/75/1998- आई आर ( सी- II ) , सं. एल-22012/74/1998- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
"Whether the action of the management of FCI Tatisilwai , Ranchi in terminating the services of Smt . Piyaso Devi without compliance of 25 F and other बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
1457
provisions of I.D. Act is right and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? " .
SCHEDULE IN
termination. So the question of alleged termination did not arise . The provision u/s 25 ( F) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in respect of temporary and casual nature of job has no application to the case.
REFERENCE NO . 55 OF 1999
"Whether the action of the management of FCI Tatisilwai , Ranchi in terminating the service of Smt. Dumman Devi without compliance of 25 F and other provisions of I.D. Act is right and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? " .
The management in its rejoinder has stated that it is admitted that the lady workers concerned had intermittently worked as casual workers during the period from 1986 to 1995. Due to the prevailing conditions and non availability ofsufficient jobs, the Lady workers concerned themselves stopped to perform casual jobs . No dispute existed before the conciliation officer in 1997 , so it was beyond settlement . They are not at all entitled to any relief as prayed for.
FINDING WITH REASONING
5. In this case, MWI Mani Prasad , the A.G. , II FCI , Tatisilwai for the management and WWI Piyaso Devi , the Lady workwoman herself and WW2 Shyam Upadhaya, Ancilliary Worker, FCI concerned for herself have been examined. In the reference case No. 55/99 ( anologous) aforsaid MWI Mani Prasad for the management, and WWI Dubhan Devi ( Dumman ) , the another workwoman for hereself have been examined .
2. The pleaded case of workwomen Smt . Piyaso Devi and Dumman Devi is that though they had been working as casual laboures on temporary basis as engaged by the Management of FCI , Tatisilwai , Ranchi from 1986 to 1995 by performing their duty for more than 240 days in 12 months preceding the calender years , the management in stead of regularising them such status in their service arbitrarely stopped them from working without any notice u/ s 25 F of the Industrial DisputeAct . The work performed bythem is ofpermanent nature . The list of casual laboures engaged by the Management and the Arrear Bill of the . casual labourers at enhanced rate of Rs . 30 per day mentions their names and they have got their arrears as per the payment sheets countersigned by the Asstt . Manager( D ) , FCI concerned for the said period, yet the management did not regularise them, rather they have been vindictively victimised at its hand. In spite of the admission of the management in its written statement before the ALLC (C) , Dhanbad concerning them, the non- conciliation ofthe disputeby the management resulted in the reference for an adjudication .
Unjustifying the claim of petitioner Piyaso Devi and Dhubhan Devi MWI Mani Prasad as Asstt . General II FCI . Tatisilwai has stated that the female workers were exigently engaged as casual workers for collecting food grains from the flour and sweeping etc.at the Depot of Tatisilwai ; but they never worked under the management for more then 240 days in a year ; as such the question of issuing any notice or payment of compensation unarises in respect of the female workers who were casually deployed as casual workers during the period 1986 to 1995 , though they had left the place before 1994. According to the witness (MWI ). the management has 180 regular workers who were regularised in the year 1994 ; and that the management never issued the casual workers any appointment letter .
3. The workwomen in their rejoinders with specific denials have further pleaded that many workers including Lady ones were to perform different kinds of the jobs of perenial nature including loading and unloading of food stuffs from Rly. Wagons to the Depot , and to the Trucks . The management had admitted the relation of master and servant . The management has a pocket union in gloves with each other to be mum over their termination from service. The Industrial Dispute is raisable even u/ s 2A of the I.D. Act . The Management has though regularised all the workers sponsored by the Union. Their termination is unjustifiable by the management.
6. Whereas WWI Piyaso Devi , the petitioner herself has alleged that the management illegally and arbitrarily did not regularise her as casual worker, though the workers including her continously worked under the management throughout the month and the year for which they were paid on their thumb impression on paper yet she was stopped from the service without any notice to her. But the petitioner knowing full well that appointment letter is issued to a person who is appointed and in facts she has not got any letter nor any letter of termination from his service . Quite similar is the statement of WWI Dhubhan Devi in her case conducive to that of aforsaid workman PiyasoDevi .
4. Contra pleaded case of the management with categorical denials is that the Lady workmen were exigently engaged as casual workers to perform miscellaneous jobs at the Depot . They were neither permanent workers nor appointed as probationers against any permanent vacant post. Their employment was never continuous , they never put240 days attendance continuously in any calender year. The Union being in the full know of it , did not sponsor their cases for their regular absorption . They voluntarily left engagement as casual labours . The alleged Industrial disputes are individual , not industrial disputes , for alleged
WW2 Shyam Nand Upadhaya , the Ancillary worker , FCI Tatisilwai . Ranchi on summon , has stated to have regularised along with the 35 workmen working from 1986 1458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
held that question of terminating the service of casual workers/petioners Smt. Piyaso Devi and Smt . Dubhan Devi (Dumman) by the action of the Management of FCI , Tatisilwai , Ranchi without compliance of 25 F and other provisions of I.D. Act does not arise whether right or justified , because they never continously worked as casual labours for 240 days in preceding calender year , namely in the year 1994 or in the year 1995 ; Therefore they are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2013
against the sanctioned posts of ancillary in the FCI since 1-01-1994 . He has proved 38 sheets of payment ofwages (thephotocopies for the workmen for the period 1993 to 1991 as Ext . W.1series) ( with objection) , as well as the photocipies of bills for the casual laburers under the signature of him and that of Mr. Srivastavajee , new the Retd.Asstt.Gr. II and under the LTI of the workman , though there is no seal of the Asstt .Gr. II yet it has the seal of the manager . The witness ( WW2 ) has admitted that Mr. Srivastavajee was not the Asstt. Manager in the year 1994, and the photocipies of the bills are under the seal of the Asstt . Manager . According to him , the workman has not submitted any paper as a proof of their still working in the FCI and the workman used to take work from them for 30 days , but paid for 90 days wages in each month as also alleged by the petitioner the fact of payment of wages for 90 days only in place of 30 days in a month is unpleaded, so the evidence is untenable .
का.आ. 458. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 54/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| सं. एल-22012/482/1996 आई आर ( सी II ) | बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th January , 2013
S.O. 458. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/1997 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in retation tothe management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2013.
[No. L - 22012/482 / 1996- IR ( C - II ) | Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
7. Mr. Chandrika Pd . , the Ld . Advocate for the work woman submits that in view of the admission of the management about the workers Piyaso Devi and Dhuban Devi ( Dumman ) having been engaged as casual workers on daily wages since 1986 to 1995 who worked regularly but they were terminated without any notice , though they had completed 240 days in each year. Further it is contended ontheir behalf that since they were not the members of the Unions , so they were not regularised . In support of his contention Mr. C. Prasad , the Ld . Counsel for the petitioners Piyaso Devi has relied upon the authority : (2010) ISCC ( L & S) 420 ( DB) which in relation to Sec . 25 F of the I.D. Act . , 1947 its applicability to the casual employees . The perusal of the authority reveals as held . by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen is whether he has completed 240 days of sevice in preceding twelve months or not ;
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, PresidingOfficer
Reference No. 54 of 1997
PARTIES: The management of Chora Group . M/s . ECI . Bahula Burdwan
Vs. The Jt . Gen. Secy. CMU , Ukhra , Burdwan
Representatives:
Sri P.K. Das , Ld . Advocate
For the management :
For the union (Workman) :
8. On the scuritiny of the materials as adduced on behalf of both the parties in this reference case under adjudication , I find as apparent from the photocopy of the Arrear bill or those of bill of casual workers ( Ext. W. I series with objection ) related to wages payment from July to Nov. , 1993 and the bills of casual labourers for the months of April , May, July, 1991 , Feb , and Dec. 1992 , May and June, 1993 , March, 1994 and Jan. & Feb , 1995 respectively as objectionable proof that petitioner Piyaso Devi and Dubhan Devi have not been able to render her service continously for 240 days in any of the said calender years which is the prerequisite to the issuance of notice under 25 F of the I.D. Act , for the termination of a casual worker service . As such , the cases of the petitioners appears to be quite far off the fulfilment of requisite of the notice about it .
Sri S. K. Pandey, 1.d. Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated- 08-01-2013
In veiw of the aforsaid findings , I find that the argumentnent of Mr. C. Prasad , the Ld . Adv. for the Lady petitioners is not at all plausable and justified . Hence it is [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
1459
AWARD
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section ( 1 ) and Sub-Section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 482/ 96 - IR (C - II ) dated 29-08-97 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
certificate of fitness , but the Management did not consider the medical treatment papers or the fitness certificate which were filed during enquiry and the Management did not allow the workman tojoin and dismissed the workman with effect from 09-06-94 which is against the principle of "Natural Justice " . It has further been submitted that only on the ground of absence for short - period ; the Management passed the capital punishment to the workman and threw the workman on road with his whole family for begging- without giving any opportunity to the workmanto reform himself in future .
"Whether the action of the management of Kenda Area of ECL in dismissing Sh . Bhola Bhuia , Cableman, from service w.e.f. 29-06-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ? "
Onperusal of the documents filed on behalf of the Management I find that the workman remain absent from 13-11-93 to 09-03-94 that is about 3 months 26 days , and on 10-03-94 the workman appeared with fitness certificate issued by the doctor , but the same was not considered and the workman was not allowed to join . Further I find from the documents that there is no previous antecedent against the workman that he was habitual absentee . In my opinion , the Management has taken very harsh decision against the workman by dismissing him from service without giving him any opportunity to reform himself.
(2) Having received the Order of Leiter No. L-22012/ 482/96 - IR(C - II ) dated 29-08-1997 of the above said reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 54 of 1997 was registered on 15-09-97 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Accordingly the decision of the Management of Kenda Area of ECL in dismissing Bhola Bhuia, Cable- man is fit to be set aside as illegal and against the principle of "Natural Justice " . The workman is entitled to be allowed tojoin the service with back wages form 10-03-94 on which date the doctor has issued fitness certificate . The workman is not entitled to get any wages of his absent period i.c. from 13-11-93 to 09-03-94. The Management must take an undertaking from the workman that he will not remain unauthorized absent in future , before allow him to join .
ORDER
(3 ) The workman Bhola Bhuiya, who was working as Cableman of Chora Colliery 729 pit found absented from his duty from 13-11-93 to 09-03-94 on Medical ground ( illness) , and accordingly an enquiry was held and after enquiry he has been found guity of unauthorized absent from duty and Charge - Sheet submitted and subsequently the workman has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 29-06-94.
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the "Award " to the Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi for information and needful .
The management has filed photo copies of enquiry proceeding and other documents . On perusal of the enquiry report dated 03-05-94, 1 find that the workman was suffering from stomach pain and vomiting and he was under treatment of the Dr. B.N. Pal and medical reports (Exhibit 9) were filed during enquiry proceeding.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली . 28 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 459. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में . केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 71/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/502/1999- आई आर(सी -11 ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी The main grievance of the Management against the workman is that he remain absent from duty without informing the Management . The learned Representative of the workman has submitted that on 13-11-93 the workman suddenly attacked with stomach pain and blood vomiting, so to save his own life he was rushed to nearby doctor for treatment and Dr. B.N. Pal of Haripur treated him. It has further been submitted that due to this reason the workman or his family members could not inform the Management regarding his illness and the said doctor treated him upto 09-03-94- and on 10-03-94 the doctor gave [ PART 11 --SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23.2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
1460
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 459. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in retation to the management of ECL . their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2013 .
[No. L-22012/502/ 1999 - IR (C - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer
Reference No. 71 of 2000
Parties : The management of New Kenda Colly.
M/ s . ECL , Bahula , Burdwan
Vs.
The Org, Secy, CMU ( INTUC ), Kenda, Burdwan
Representatives :
Sri P.K. Das , Ld . Advocate For the management :
concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
(3) The workman Narayan Dusad , Clipman of New Kenda Colliery , of ECL has been dismissed from service on 19-08-96 under Section 17 ( i ) ( N ) on the basis of C.S. No. Pers / CS/ 96/37 dated 19-08-96 due to his absence from duty from 30-5-96 for two months and odd period.
Itis the case of the workman that he fall ill and he was admitted to Colliery Hospital where he was treated by colliery doctor and in support of the same documents have been filed. It appears from the record that the workman hassubmitted all the documents including postal receipts of those letters by which he had sent information to the Management . It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not consider those documents and recommended for dismissal -which is against the " Natural Justice " .
For the union (Workman ) : Sri S.K. Pandey, Ld . Representative
Industry : Coal
State: West Bengal Dated-08-01-2013
AWARD
The learned lawyer of the Management has submitted that the workman absented himself from duty without taken any prior leave from the Management and newly absent for about two months due to which the work of the Company was hampered and the Management has rightly tookdecision and dismissed the workman . On perusal of the record I find that the Management neither filed any documents nor examined any witness to show or prove any past record of the workman that earlier he had also absented unauthorisedly from duty. Thus . I find that the absence of the workman is first fault and for this fault , the Management ought to have given a warning or minimum punishment in stead of passing capital punishment to him by dismissing from service- which is beyond the principle of " Natural Justice" .
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/502/99 - IR (CM - II ) dated 01-08-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .
SCHEDULE
Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case discussed above . I find and come into conclusion that the action of the Management of New Kenda Colliery ofM/ s . ECL in dismissing Sri Narayan Dusad, Clipman , from service is neither legal nor justified , and accordingly the order of dismissal is failed to be set aside.
The workman must reinstate in the service from the date of dismissal with full back wages . However the Management will be at liberty to stop one increment by way of punishment and future warni
"Whether the action of the management of New Kenda Colliery of M / s . ECL in dismissing Sh . Narayan Dusad, Clipman ,from service is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
!
ORDER
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the " Award " to the Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi for information and needful .
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer (2)Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 502/99-1R ( CM - II ) dated 01-08-2000 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 71 of 2000 was registered on 06-09- 2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1461 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
under Section 10 Sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and Sub- section ( 2 - A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :--
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Panipat , in terminating the services of Sh . Rajesh welf. 18-12-1998 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
का.आ. 460. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इंडियन ऑयल कम्पनी लिमिटेड, पानीपत रिफाइनरी पानीपत के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 570/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/49/2000- आई आर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
According to the applicant he had been appointed bythe management on 27-9-1996 and he worked under the control and supervision and on the machines of the management . On 17-12-1992 he was refused work without assigning any reason and though he had completed more than 240 days ' service at the time of his termination . His services were terminated in violation of Section 25 of the Act.According to the workman the management is guilty ofvoilating Section 25G, H , N and O of the Act also . He has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service .
S.O. 460. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 570/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . IOCL , Panipat Refinery, (Panipat) and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 21-1-2013 .
[No. L-30012/49/2000 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH
Present:
Shri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. 570/2005 Registered on 23-8-2005
The case was contested by the management and it was alleged that during the period the workman is alleging his employment with the respondent . There was no industry in existence as the work of erection and construction of the Refinery in progress at that time . Hence, no industrial dispute pertaining to the management could be raised . There is no relationship of master and servantbetween the management and the workman. There is no question of terminating his services by the management . According to the management the workman wasworking with M/ s . Vinay Jain and Company Chartered Accountant who had deputed the workman to carry out the work for and on behalf of the firm. lie was an employee of the Chartered Accountant . According to the management the reference is not competent and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Shri Rajesh Gauba, C/o Sh . Karan Singh, Secretary, Bhartia Mazdoor Sangh , Lal Bati Chowk, Panipat .
Petitioner
Versus
Theworkman filed a replication to say that he was in the appointment of the management during the erection and construction work and there is a relationship ofmaster and servant between the management and the workman and he was not in the employment of M/ s . Vinay Jain and Compamy.
The Executive Director, IOCL, Panipat Refinery Project, Bohali , Panipat .
Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman .
: Sh. Karam Singh.
In support of its case workman examined himself DanSingh , Retired Deputy Finance Manager of the IOCL Refinery Division and Sultan Singh the then Material Clerk of the management. Photocopies of certain papers were also filed. While on behalf of the management affidavit of K.S. Sandal was filed.
For the Management : Sri Raj Kaushik.
AWARD
Passed on 26th December, 2012
Noneappeared on behalf of the parties to argue the case. I have however perused the evidence on record. The point involved in the case is whether there is a relationship of master and servant between the management and the workman .
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/ 49/2000/ IR(M ) dated 30-8-2000 , by exercising its powers
537 GI/ 2013-18 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1462
नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 461. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ओरिएन्टल एंन्श्योरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड , हरियाणा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1342/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल 17011 /5/2007 - आई आर ( एम ) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013 In his statement the workman says that he had appeared the written test on the basis of a notice pasted on the notice board and he had made an application for his appointment . But the fact of his appearing in the written test is not mentioned in his claim statement and admittedly he does not possess , any copy of the application . He however admitted that he was not registered with the Employment Exchange and had not received any interview letter and he has not been given any appointment letter also. He does not possess any document to prove that he was getting salary from the management. He placed on record a document A- 14to show that IOCL was in operation in 1998 but he admitted that it was not signed by anyone . In his statement he denied that he was an employee of M / s . Vinay Jain and Company.
S.O. 461. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1342/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (Haryana) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2013 .
No. 1.- 17011 /5/2007 - IR (M) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH
Present :
Shri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer
Case No. 1.D. 1342/2007 Registered on 17-12-2007
Hiswitness Dan Singh had joined the management in the year 1991 as Typist- cum-Clerk and as Deputy Finance Manager in the year 2000. He has stated that at the time of end of the month M /s . Vinay Jain and Company Chartered Accountant were getting his approval to the fact that the employees had worked in the finance department during the month or not . In his cross- examination he stated that the workman was working under the guidance and directions of the agency. He was working as a calculator for the agency and the witness used to verify the working of the workman since the agency was to be paid all the work done by the agency . The workman was not an employee of the management . The payment of the workman used to be made to M /s . Vinay Jain and Company Chartered Accountant and during the year 1998 the construction work of the management was going on and the working of the refinery had not been commissioned .
The General Manager, All India Oriental Insurance Employees Union , 1687 - Kacha Bazar , Ambala Cantt. Haryana.
Petitioner
Versus
Another witness of the workman Sultan Singh denied his signatures on the photocopies filed by the workman . He also denied knowing the workman and that the workman had worked under him . He also said that the Refinery had not been commissioned in the year 1997 and 1998.
The Chairman - cum-Managing Director , The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Oriental House , Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
Respondent
Appearances
:Sh . Rakesh Gupta , Advocate : Sri T. S. Gujral , Advocate.
For the Workman . For the Management
AWARD
Passed on 28th December, 2012 The case of the workman stands thus demolished by his own witnesses . It is clear from the evidence ofthe workman witnesses that the Refinery had not been commissioned at the relevant time and the workman was not in the employment of the management . Obviously, there was no relationship of master and servant between the management and the workman and his services cannot be presumed to have been terminated by the management . He has no case . The reference is answered against the workman.
Central Government vide Notification No. L - 17011 / 5/2007 - IR(M ) dated 7-12-2007, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d) and ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1463 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
Sub- section (2 - A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
Compassionate Ground Appointments to the legal heirs of deceased employee . The related demand is mentioned atserial No. 8 ofpara 4 of the claim statement . In the claim statement it has not been clarified as to what is the justification for the appointment on Compassionate Ground and how the introduction of the new scheme for grant of Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Ground Appointments is unjustified and is against the interest of theworkmen.
"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , in introducing the practice of sanctioning minimum 6/7 days earned leave is just, fair and legal ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled to end from which date ? " " Whether the action to the management of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , in regard to introduction of scheme for grant of Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Ground Appointments to the legal heir of the deceased employee without consensus of the unions/workmen in the matter is just, fair and legal ? If not , what should be the alternative scheme for compassionate appointment ?"
As per claim statement the Union- claimant on 20-4-2006 had served a Demand Notice raising 19demands but during the conciliation proceedings , demands No. 1 , 2, 3 and 14 were dropped on some assurance given by the management . With regard to remaining demands various suggestions and opinions were given by the parties to sort out the disputes but the disputes could not be resolved due towhich the conciliation proceedings failed and failure report was submitted . In the claim statement all the 19 demands of the demand notice have been reproduced and it has been requested that the demands detailed at serial No. 4 to 13 and 15 to 19 be adjudicated.
But in this regard the reference order is worth- mentioning in which only 2 demands had been referred for adjudication
1. Whether the action of the Insurance Company in introducing the practice of sanctioning minimum 6/7 days earned leave is just , fair and legal ?
2. Whether the action of the management in regard to introduction of scheme for grant of Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Ground Appointments to the legal heir of the deceased employee without consensus of the Union/ workmen in the matter is just, fair and legal ?
It is may be mentioned that the demand about the earned leave is mentioned at serial No. 3 in the claim statement . The Union in the claim statement is not pressing this demand ; since it is pressing the demands from 4 to 13 and 15 to 19 only. Obviously with regard to the demand related to earned leave period for a minimum 5 days the Union is not pressing its claim .
The only dispute for adjudication therefore remains the Schemefor grant of Monetary Compensation in lieu of
Management contested the claim and filed reply and additional reply. It has been stated in the additional reply thatthe provisions of minimum 7 days earned leave and Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Ground Appointments are not peculiar to the respondent- Company alone and are uniformly followed in all the Public Sector General Insurance Companies . With regard to Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Ground Appointments it is stated that the four Public Sector General Insurance Company including the respondent- Company after the entry of the private players in the market in 2000-01 were required to review all their systems and procedures with a view to effectively combat the competition brought in by the private players . Such a view wasconducted in all functional areas of their working and whatever necessary, requisite reforms were introduced and are still being introduced . One of such review revealed thatthe Companies need to rationalize their Cadre Strength having regard to the volume of the business and introduction of the IT driven business practices . A study in this direction further establishment that the Companies needed triming the size of their manpower for their sheer survival . Being in Public Sector, it was not possible for the Companies to resort to job - cuts , but following the best model employer practices , and after a dialogue of the management with all representative Unions/Associations . the Central Government introduced Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes for all classes of employees in these Companies in the financial year 2003-2004 , resulting in about 12 per cent reduction in their workfocre . Even after these SVR Schemes , the Companies , with their present volumes of business , are still living with an excess manpower, which is expected to even out in due course . partly by a growth of business and partly by exists of employees by normal means such as superannuating. With this scenario , the Companies were not in a position to continue with the welfare measure of Compassionate Ground Appointments , particularly, when the other comparable Public Sector Organizations , such as Banks . have already dispensed with such provisions . Moreover several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtalso called for an immediate review ofthis provision . In the meanwhile , the Government of India had already introduced a Pension Scheme for employees of these Companies , to take care of the social security of these employees and the families of those dying in harness [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
1464
Accordingly in June/August 2002 , the four Public Sector General Insurance Companies (after due dialogue with the Employees Unions in January 2002 and not unilaterally as alleged by the claimant - Union ) replaced the provision of Compassionate Grounds Appointment with the system of Monetary Compensation in lieu thereof.
regarding the Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Grounds Appointment . But as stated above in the claim statement no reason or ground has been given on which basis the impugned scheme may be held unfair or illegal , while the management has given the reasons and set out the circumstances leading the introduction of the new scheme. I am of the view that for the reasons given by the management , the scheme of providing Monetary Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Ground Appointment cannot be held to be unjust, unfair and illegal . Hence in my view the claimant union is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against it.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer It was also pleaded in the additional reply that in pursuance to order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi on July 8, 2008 in the writ petition arising out of instant impugned reference , the matter was taken up by the High Powered Committee , who permitted the repondent- Company to pursue the matter before High Court.However before the matter could be taken up before the Hon'ble High Court , the claimant - Union filed the matter before this Tribunal and the matter is subjudiced.
नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2013
It may be mentioned that after the filling ofthe reply/ written statement by the management on 12-8-2012 none appeared for the Union and the case proceeded ex parte against the Union vide order dated 1-3-2011 .
On behalf of the management a witness was examined.
का.आ. 462. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एन आर सी ऑफ एग्रो फारेस्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 18/05 , 21/05 , 28/06 , 9/06 , 44/06 , 46/06 , 02/06 , 54/05 , 56/05 , 57/05 , 31/06 , 32/06 , 33/06 , 19/05 , 01/06 , 47/06 , 30/06 , 58/05 , 48/06 , 20/05 , 29/06 , 53/05 , 11/06 , 03/06 , 20/06, 34/06 , 55/05 , 26/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| सं. एल -42012/ 239/2004- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/235/2004- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/67/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/29/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/ 103 /2005 आई आर ( सी II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/ 105/2005 - आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एलः 42012/ 26/2005- आई आर ( सी 11 ) , Since none appeared on behalf of the claimant after. the filing written statement of the management, I heard the learned counsel for the management and perused the record . The management has filed a copy of the order dated 8-7-2008 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 1150/2008 and CM No. 2233/2008 . The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Union of India and Others in which the Hon'ble High Court issued a direction to the Insurance Company to approach the High Powered Committee for resolution of the disputes , and pending resolution of the disputes or alternatively permission to initiate litigation by the High Powered Committee, the respondent No. 1 i.e. Union of India shall not take any steps in pursuance of the order dated 7-12-2007 impugned in the writ petition.
सं. एल-42012/30/2005 आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल 42012/47/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल -42012/46/2005- आई आर ( सी -11 ) ,
सं. एल-42012/66/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल -42012/61 /2005 आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/63/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/ 238/2004- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/27/2005 आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/104/2005 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल -42012/65/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) , From the additional reply of the management it is clear that the matter has already been taken up by a High Powered Committee in pursuance of the order by the Hon'ble High Court and the said Committee permitted the respondent - Company to pursue the matter before the High Court . But the matter could not be taken up before the Hon'ble High Court as the Union has filed this claim petition . Obviously neither the Hon'ble High Court nor the High Powered Committee is presently seized with the matter.
सं. एल-42012/31 /2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/100/2005- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल 42012/237/2004 आई आर ( सी-II ) , So far as this reference is concerned it may be reiterated that out of the two disputes referred in the reference order the Union - claimant has pressed its demand [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1465 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
सं. एल-42012/64/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
ANNEXURE
सं. एल-42012/49/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/25 /2005- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
सं. एल-42012/28 /2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ,
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.
सं. एल-42012/ 55 /2005- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
Industrial Dispute nos.-
सं. एल-42012/62/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ;
सं. एल-42012/48/2005- आई आर (सी- II ) ,
1. I.D. No. 18/05 L - 42012/239/2004 - IR CM - II dated 05-08-05.
सं. एल-42012/236/2004- आई आर (सी- II ) ]
Ramesh Singh son of Sri Atar Singh, Village Simardha, PostKarari , Jhansi.-
बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
2. I.D. No. 21/05 , L-42012/235/2004- IR CM II dated 05-08-05, Sobaran son of Issi , Village post Bhojla , Jhansi . Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Sobaran son of Issi from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?
3. I.D. No.28/06, L -42012/67/2005 , IR-CM - II dated 17-05-06 . Jarad Khan son Raunik Ali , Post and Village Bhojla Jhansi .
S.O. 462. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/05 , 21/05, 28/06, 09/06, 44/06, 46/06, 02/06, 54/05 , 56/05, 57/05, 31/06, 32/06 , 33/06, 19/05 , 01/06, 47/06 , 30/06, 58/05, 48/06, 20/05 , 29/06 , 53/05 , 11/06, 03/06, 20/06, 34/06, 55/05, 26/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NRC for Agro Forestry and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2013 .
[No. L-42012/239/2004- IR(C-II),
No. L-42012/235 /2004 - IR( C-II ) ,
No. L -42012/67/2005 - IR(C -II ) ,
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Jarad Khan son of Raunak from service with effect from 1-12-03 islegal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?
No. L -42012/29/2005 - IR(C- II ) ,
No. L-42012/ 103 /2005- IR(C - II ),
No. L-42012/ 105/2005 - IR(C- II ) ,
No. L-42012/26/2005 - IR(C- II ) ,
No. L-42012/30/2005 - IR(C - II) ,
No. L -42012/47 /2005 - IR(C - II),
No. L-42012/46/2005 - IR(C-II ) ,
No. L -42012/66/2005 - IR(C- II ),
4. I.D. No. 09/06 , L -42012 /29/2005 , IR- CM - II dated 3-1-06, Jitender son of Asha Ram Village & Post Bhojla Jhansi . Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Jitendra son of Sri Asha Ram from service with effect from 1-10-03 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
No. L-42012/61 /2005 - IR(C- II),
No. L-42012/63/2005 - IR(C - II ),
5.I.D. No. 44 of 06 , L - 42012/ 103 /2005 - IR CM.II dt . 28-6-06
No. L -42012/238 /2004 - IR(C - II ) ,
No. L-42012/27/2005- IR(C- II ) ,
Jagdish son of Hardas 44 outside Unao Gate Jhasni .
No. L-42012/ 104/2005 - IR(C- II ),
No. L-42012/65/2005 - IR(C - II ),
No. L -42012/31 /2005- IR(C- II ),
No. L -42012/ 100/2005 - IR(C - II ),
No. L -42012/237/2004- IR(C - II) ,
No. L -42012/64/2005 - IR(C- II) ,
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Jagdish son of Hardas from service with effect from 1-04-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?
No. L -42012/49/2005 - IR(C - II) ,
No. L -42012/25/2005 - IR(C- II),
6. I.D. No. 46 of06 , L-42012/ 105/2005 - IR CM II dated 28-06-2006.
No. L-42012/28/ 2005 - IR(C - II ),
No. L-42012/ 55/2005- IR( C- II ) ,
No. L-42012/62/2005 - IR(C- II),
Brijesh Kumar son ofSri Kripa Ram Dhobi , Village & PostDhamna Khurd via Bara Gaon , P.S. Barwasagar , Jhansi .
No. L -42012/48/2005 - IR(C- II ),
No. L-42012/236/2004- IR(C- II ) ]
Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Brijesh Kumar son of Sri Kripa Ram Dhobi from service with effect 1466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4. 1934
from 1-10-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? Whether the action ofthe management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry. in terminating Sri Ramesh Singh son of Sri Atar Singh from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?
7. I.D. No. 2/06 . L - 42012 / 26 / 2005 - IR CM II dt . 14-12-05
Ghanshyam son of Beni Prasad Village and Post Bhojla , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry , in terminating Sri Ghanshyam son of Beni Prasad from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled?
8. I.D. No. 54/05 , L -42012 / 30/ 2005 - IR CM II dt .
29-11-05 , Naresh Kumar son of Ram Swarup c/ o Om Parkas Jha . Outside Datiya Gate , Nakhta Chopra , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Naresh Kumar son of Ram Swarup from service with effect from 1-10-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
9. 1.D. No. 56/05 L - 42012/ 47/2005 - IR CM II dated 06-12-05 . Munna son of Mangi . Village & Post Bhojla , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Munna son of Mangi Prasad from service with effect from 1-12-03 is - legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
10. I.D. No. 57/05, L - 42012 /46 /2005 - IR CM II dt. 06-12-05 .
Gulab son ofMoti Lal Village Simardha Post Karari , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Gulab son ofMoti Lal from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
11. I.D. No. 31/06 L -42012/66/2005 - IR CM II dated 17-05-06.
Ramesh son of Sri Har Prasad Village Samradha Post Karari , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Ramesh son of Har Prasad from service with effect from
PART II Sc. 3in
1-10-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
12. I.D. No. 32 06. 1.-42012 61 2005 - IR CM - II dated 17-05-06 .
Munna l.al son of Dhani Ram Raikwar . Village Samradha Post Karari . Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Munna Lal son of Dhani Ram Raikwar from service with effect from 1-10-03 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
13. 1.D. No. 33/06.1 . - 4201263 2005 - IR CM - II dated 17-05-06.
Suresh Singh son of Sri Jhunna , Village Simradha . Post Karari , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry , in terminating Sri Suresh Singh son of Jhunna from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified? If not , to what reliet the concerned workman is entitled?
14. 1.D. No. 19/05 L -42012/ 238 / 2004 - IR CM - II dated 05-08-2005 . Daya Ram son of Sri Ram Sewak Village and PostBhojla, Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Daya Ram son of Ram Sewak from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not,to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
15. I.D. No. 01/06 , L - 42012/27/ 2005 - IR CM - II dated 14-12-05 .
Jhansi . Virendra son of Chhimmi Village and Post Bhojla ,
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Virendra son of Chhimmi from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
16. I.D. No.47/06 , L -42012/ 104/2005 - IR CM - II dated 28-06-06.
Hardayal son of Sri Bhagwan Das Kushwaha , 157 Unao Gate Mewati Pura , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Hardayal son of Sri Bhagwan Dass Kushwaha from service with effect from 1-10-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
17. I.D. No. 30/06 , L -42012/65 /2005 - IR CM - II dated 17-05-06.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1467
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Mahesh son of Sarnam with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
Sri Parkash son of Babu Lal Kushwaha, 69 Out side Sujan Khan Khirki , Jhansi . Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry, in terminating Sri Parkash son of Babu Lal Kushwaha from service with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
23. I.D. No.11/06 , L - 42012/25 /2005 - IR CM II dated 03-01-2006 .
18. I.D. Case No. 58/05, L -42012/31 /2005 - IR CM - II dated 29-11-2005 .
Sri Malkhan son of Bala Prasad Village and Post Bhojla, Jhansi .
Daya Sharma son of Halkey Village Simradha Post Karari , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Malkhan son of Bala Prasad with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the services of Sri Daya Sharma son of Sri Halkey with effect from 01-12-03 is legal and justified? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?
24. I.D. No. 3/06 , L - 42012/ 28 /2005 - IR CM II dt. 14-12-05 .
19. I.D. No. 48 of06, L -42012/ 100/2005 - IR CM II dated 12-06-06.
Sri Kishori Lal Son of Sri Bhunney, Village and Post Bhojla, Jhansi .
Mani Ram son of Sri Raju Out Side Unao Gate Near Shamshan Ghat , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Kishori Lal Son of Sri Bhunney with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Mani Ram Son of Sri Raju with effect from 01-03-2003 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
25. I.D. No. 20/6, L -42012/55/2005 - IR CM II dated 24-02-06.
20. I.D. No. 20/05 , L -42012/237/2004 -IR CM - II dated 5-08-05.
Sri Sarnam Singh son of Sri Shiv Dayal , Village Behta, Post Issagarh , Jhansi .
Sri Har Govind son of Nand Kishore Village and PostBhojla , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Sarnam Singh Son of Sri Shiv Dayal with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?
26. I.D. No. 34/06 , L - 42012/62 /05 - IR CM - II dated 17-05-06.
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Hargovind Son of Sri Nand Kishore with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?
Sri Munna son of Sri Janki Village and Post Bhojla, Jhansi.
21. I.D. No. 29/06, L -42012/64/05 - IR CM - II dated 17-05-06 .
Harish Chandra son of Beni Prasad Village and Post Bhojra , Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Munna son of Janki with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?
27. 1.D. No. 55/05 . L-42012/48/2005 - IR CM - II dated 06-12-05.
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Harish Chandra son of Sri Beni Prasad with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?
Tulsi Ram son of Nanhoo , Village and Post Bhojla, Jhansi .
22. I.D. No. 53 of 05, L-42012/49/2005 - IR CM - II dated 06-12-05 .
Mahesh son of Sarnam Village and Post Bhojla District Jhansi .
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Tulsi Ram Son of Sri Nanoo with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
28. 1.D. of26/05 . L -42012/ 236 /2004 /IR ( CM II) dated 09-08-05 .
theAct. It is also alleged that after their termination from services the opposite party has engaged a number of persons which is again in violation of Section 25H of the Act.
Sri Rakesh Son of Sri Mukhi Lal , Village and Post Bhojla , Jhansi .
6. Therefore , all the applicants have prayed that they should be reinstated and consequential benefits should be given to them.
Whether the action of the management of National Research Center for Agro Forestry in terminating the service of Sri Rakesh Son of Sri Mukhi Lal with effect from 01-12-2003 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?
And
The Director,
National Research Center For Agro Forestry, Gwalior Road, Jhansi .
AWARD
1. Brief facts are-
2. These are the 28 cases numbering given above-
7. Opposite party has filed written statement . Mainly they have stressed that these workmen were never employed against any sanctioned post, there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the opposite party and the management , once they had never been in the employment of the opposite party therefore , question oftheir termination from services does not arise and simultaneously have also refuted breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . It is also alleged that the engagement of these workmen were for time bound period and their services came to an end by efflux of time. It has also been stated by the opposite party that from 1992, all the work seasonal or otherwise are being taken through contractor. It is also alleged that these workmen had never completed 240 days or more prior to their date oftermination .
3. On the request of both the parties alleging that all the cases are based on similar facts and common question of law is involved , therefore, considering their prayer for consolidation all the aforesaid cases have been consolidated and LD . 18 of 2005 Ramesh Singh case has been made the leading case . Evidence has been adduced only in this case . Documents have been referred relating to this case , therefore , I am narrating the facts of this case and I do not find it necessary to narrate the facts of other cases .
8. This written statement comprises of 279 paragraphs and 117 pages mostly there is repetition of facts . Preliminary objection has also been raised in number ofparagraphs like that the reference is bad in law and the tribunal has no jurisdiction . Filing of such type of written statement which is a repetition of facts and other things has never been considered in a happy way.
9. Lastly it is prayed that the claim of the workmen isdevoid of merit and is liable to be rejected and should be rejected.
10. Rejoinder statement has also been filed but nothing new has been pleaded therein.
11. Claimant has filed several documents . 14 documents have been filed vide list dated 8-7-2008 , but the auth . Rep . for the workman has drawn my attention mainly on paper nos . 29 , 30, 31 , 32, 33 and 38, which will be discussed during the analysis of evidence .
4. It is alleged by the claimant of this case and other cases that their agriculture land was acquired by the opposite party as such the opposite party engaged them for their livelihood . Sri Ramesh Singh was employed by the opposite party with effect from 1-6-89 as mazdoor on daily rated basis . The work of the opposite party is of perennial nature . The work and conduct of the applicant were very good but when the applicants demanded equal wages for equal work and other raised other demands , this annoyed the opposite party and they terminated the services of Sri Ramesh Singh with effect from 1-12-03 . In. all the other files in number of cases the date is same though in few cases date of termination is October 2003 and likewise . Thus the claimant allege that he has continuouslyworked from 1-6-89 till the date of termination and worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. Opposite party did not issue any notice or pay retrenchment compensation etc. , as per the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act .
12. Opposite party has also fined documents vide list 23-7-10 . These documents are , photocopy of registration certificate under the contractor labour Act, 1970, photocopy of license of contractor Sri Jai Ram and. others, photocopy of renewal of license of contractor .
13. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence . Claimant has adduced himself. He has filed affidavit in the evidence and he has been cross examined .
5. It is also alleged that their services have been terminated while many juniors viz . , Ram Babu, Arvind , Baljeet etc. were retained in service , therefore, this action ofthe opposite party is in violation of the provisions of 1469
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
14. Opposite party has filed an affidavit of Sri Ganga Ram Sr. Farm Manager.
15. Both witnesses have been cross examined .
16. It is stated on oath by MW1 that the work at National Research Center for Agro Forestry is of occasional , seasonal nature and not of a regular nature and after 1992 all such type of work is being done through contractor. It is stated that the aforesaid center has been duly registered under Contract Labour Act , 1970 and they are licensed contractor. It is stated that alleged applicant Sri Ramesh Singh and others might have been engaged as a contract labour through the contractor and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . They had never been appointed or engaged against any post . Their names have never been sponsored by employment exchange and no appointment letter has ever been given to the applicant . The management had never paid any wage or salary to Sri Ramesh Singh and other. They have never worked for 240 days or more before their termination . They cannot create any new post .
17. I have examined the evidence adduced by the workman also .
18. It is a fact that there is no appointment letter, their names have never been sponsored by employment exchange , and there is no regular post of mazdoor as claimed. It is admitted by the claimant that they used to work on daily basis and whenever there was demand of work they were duly informed .
19. I have seen the documentary evidence also . Paper no. 29 is a certificate but it is a photocopy and it cannot be believed unless there is cogent evidence . Paper no. 30 cannot be believed . Paper no . 31 appears to on the letter pad of the opposite party but there are over writing after putting fluid and it refers to Sri Sobaran presuming thatit belongs to the year 1995, still it cannot be said that the applicant worked in the direct service of the opposite party. Paper nos . 32 and 38 are still photocopies ; paper no. 33 has also been examined by me. Attention has been drawn by the AR for the workman and this paper also does not appear to be genuine. This letter appears to be dated 27-6-95 written to Sri Sarnam Singh but the date for the inquiry alleged to against one Sri Moti Lal , the date has been given as 5-7-05 , which cannot be genuine, and there is a difference of 10 years . Termination is alleged of the year 2003 , paper dated 5-7-05 how did came in the hand of the applicant does not appear to be genuine. Similarly paper no . 31 , which I have discussed earlier that also relates to some inquiry against Moti Lal and in that inquiry the date has been shown as 3-8-95 after putting fluid. If paper no.31 and 33 read together then both the documents create doubt in the mind of the tribunal .
537 GI/2013-19
20. It is a fact that there is no payment voucher in lieu of wages or salary showing the relationship of master and servant between the parties .
21. There is not a single document showing any relationship of master and servant between the parties . Opposite party has categorically said that after their issuance of circular of the year 1990, no casual labour has beenengaged since 1992 .
22. The contention raised by the authorized representative for the claimant that after termination , many juniors viz . Ram Banu etc. , have been retained in service , is not tenable . There is no such cogent and reliable evidence in this respect also . The other contention that some new hands have been engaged after their termination is also not tenable as there is no cogent evidence. There does not appear to be any violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H by the management .
23. I have given due thoughts to all the documentary evidence and oral evidence of both the parties , there is no such cogent evidence which may prove that the applicants have been engaged or employed by the opposite party as mazdoor and they have continuously worked for 240 days or more in the preceding year from the date of their termination.
24. Therefore , the applicants have failed to prove their cases consequently they are not entitled for any relief.
25. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the workers .
RAM PARKASH !, " residing Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 463. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 618/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-23012/17/2001 आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 463. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 618 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2. Chandigarh No. Il as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the 1470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
management of BBMB , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2013.
[No. L-23012/ 17/2001 - IR ( CM- II )]
B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. 618/2005
principal clause of retrenchment . Management arbitrarily put notional breaks in his service though he had worked onthe allegeddays of breaks . Workman has further alleged thatGanguwal and Kotla Power House is a factory registered under Factories Act but the management failed to scek permission from the appropriate authority under Section 25N or the Act for the retrenchment of the workman. It has also been alleged that the work for which the workman had been engaged is still going on and now has been entrusted to BHEL and the said firm had recruited its own workman without , giving an opportunity of re-emploment to the workman . The workman has claimed his reinstatement .
Registered on 24-8-2005
Shri Naveen Kumar , C/ o Sh . R. K. Singh Parmar, 211 - L, Brari , P.O. Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam , Ropar
Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Power Wing ) Generation , BBMB ,
Nangal Township , Ropar
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman :
Sh . R.K. Singh Parmar.
For the Management : Sh . N. K. Zakhmi Advocate .
AWARD
Passed on 26-12-2012
Central Government vide Notification No. L - 23012/ 17/2001 - IR ( CM - II ) Dated 30-4-2002, by exercising its powers under Section 10 , sub-section ( 1 ) Clause ( d) and Sub- section (2 - A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : ---
"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation BBMB , Nangal Township , Ropar in terminating the services of Sh . Naveen Kumar S/ o Sh . Madan Mohan Joshi w.e.f. 28-2-1999 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workma n is entitled to ?"
The claim was contested by the management and it was alleged that the workman had been engaged on contract basis for a specific period and specific work hence, provisions of Section 25F and 2( S ) of the Act are not applicable . According to the management the workman had been engaged on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 9-9-1997 for workcharged post of Grinder on contract basis for a period of six months for renovation , modernization and uprating of generation unit of Power Houses and after the expiry of the contract period his contract was further renewed through a fresh appointment letter dated 10-3-1998 for another six months . After that the workman was re - engaged on contract basis up to 28-2-1999 vide appointment letter dated 1-1-1999 and on the expiry of the last contract period the services automatically terminated. Non - renewal contract does not amount to retrenchment and comes within the exception provided under Section 2( oo )(bb) of the Act . It was also alleged that the workman worked for less than 240 days continuously with the management during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made and since the management has not retrenched the workman hence, there was no need of taking permission from the appropriate authority. The management has not indulged in any unfair labour practice and the claim has no merits .
In support of its case workman examined himself while on behalf of management A. K. Mehta , Assistant. Executing Engineer ( Maintenance ) , BBMB , Ganguwal Power House was examined. Parties relied on certain papers also.
The case of the workman is that he had been employed as Grinderman in workcharged capacity in Ganguwal and Kotla Power Houses Division w.e.f. 19-6-1997 and remained employed up to 20-11-1998 . He was again employed w.e.f. 6-1-1999 in the same capacity till 28-2-1999 . Every time he was employed on six months basis and he was made to work for specified period to debarhim for claiming compensation payable to him under Section 25F of the Act. The work was continuous and had not completed when his services terminated . His employment for a specified period was an unfair labour practice and the respondent subsequently started contractual employment as a device to take it out of
I have heard the AR of the workman and the learned counsel for the management and perused the evidence on record . The workman in his statement has admitted appointment letters dated 9-9-1997 and 10-3-1998 but denied that after the expiry of first contract a new contract had been entered instead the earlier contract had continued according to him . He admitted that after the [ भाग II--खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1471
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
expiry of second offer he had been relieved of the job. He had admitted further the contract agreement dated 6-10-1998 Exhibit WW1 /6 and his last appointment in January 1990 through appointment letter WW1 /7 lasting up to 28-2-1999 . He stated that the management did not offer him the work thereafter although they had the work with them . He also stated that the work thereafter was assigned to a company of Hyderabad and the work had been given to that company also for six months .
The AR of the workman argued that the engagement of the workman was continuous from 16-9-1997 to 28-2-1999 and the management put artificial notional break and made the engagement of the workman for six months every time just to deprive him of the benefit of Section 25F oftheAct. He has completed 240 days of service within 12 calendar months preceding his date of termination on 28-2-1999. The work is existing and is continuous in nature. The worman had been retrenched against the provisions of Section 25F ofthe Act .
The workman has alleged that the establishment in which he had been engaged is a factory. This fact has not been disputed by the management also.
Ifthe establishment was a factory then the condition precedent for the retrenchment are governed by Section 25N of the Act under Chapter V- B and not by Section 25F ofChapter V- A of the Act. For the protection under Section 25N of the Act the workman must have completed continuous service of one year. The definition clause of Section 25B is not applicable to Chapter V- B . Therefore continuous service of one year under Section 25N of the Act means continuous service , of one year and not of240 days . Now the workman has admitted that after the expiry ofperiod of second offer he had been relieved ofthejob . It means that he had been relieved in September 1998 and was freshly engaged through appointment letter dated 1-1-1999 till 28-2-1999 i.e. for two months only. Thus there was a gap of three months between the expiry of his engagement based on second appointment letter and in his engagement vide appointment letter 1-1-1999 . The gap of three months cannot be considered as a notional break .
I agree that Section 2 (oo ) (bb) cannot be extended to cases where the job continues but periodical renewals are made to avoid giving a regular status to a workman as it would be an unfair labour practice and this clause being in nature of an exception , cannot be given a meaning which will nullify or curtail the ambit of the principal clause because it is not intended to be an outlet for the unscrupulous employers to shunt out workman in the garb of non - renewal of the contracts even if the work subsists and if the work continues the non - renewal of the contract has to be dubbed as mala fide . The nature of the employment must be judged by the nature of duties performed by the workman.
In this case it is important that through offer of appointment letter Exhibit WW1/2 dated 9-9-1997 and WW1 /5 dated 10-3-1998 the workman had been offered a post of Grinder for six months every time but his second appointment through Exhibit WW1 / 5 was subject to executing a contract agreement . Exhibit MWI / 1 and ExhibitWW1 /4 filed by management shows that thereafter also he had been engaged subject to executing contract agreement and for a very short period i.e. from 20-9-1998 to 30-9-1998 and thereafter through contract agreement . ExhibitWW1/6 from 6-10-1998 to 20-11-1998 and thereafter through offer appointment WW1 /7 from6-1-1999 to 28-2-1999.
Itwill be seen from the documents that through contract agreement Exhibit WW1/4 and Exhibit WW1/ 6 the workman had been engaged for the specific work of renovation , uprating and modernization of machines of Ganguwal and Kotla Power Houses while on other occasions he had not been employed for any specific work but only as a Grinder and for a specified period. Thus during his period of engagement though his post was the same but nature of duties were different. His engagement through Exhibit WW1/4 and WW1 / 6 for the work of renovation , uprating and modernization of machines shows that the work was not of continuous nature . There is nothing on record to suggest that the nature of work for which he was appointed on other occasions also was of continuous nature . It appears that his appointment was not for the same job and was on need- based and it was for a specified periods and the termination of his service on 28-2-1999 as per appointment letter Exhibit WWI / l was in terms of contract and the non - renewal contract cannot be dubbed as mala fide .
I agree with the learned counsel for the management that the workman had been engaged on contract basis for specific periods and his service came to an end on the expiry ofthe contract period . No mala fide can be attributed to the non renewal of the contract and it is not a case of retrenchment . It comes within the exception provided under Section 2 , clause ( oo) ( bb ) of the Act . The action of the management therefore , in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 28-02-1999 is legal and justified and workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference is answered against the workman .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer 1472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 464. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, असनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 20/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 281 2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल 22012/113/2005 आई आर ( सी एम- II )] बी. एम. पटनायक. अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 464. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 20/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bankala Colliery of M/ s. ECL , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-1-2013 .
[No. L -22012 / 113 / 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2006
PARTIES : The management of Bankola Colly. , M/ s . ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy, KMC , Asansol (WB)
Rerpresentatives :
For the management : Shri P.K. Goswami , Ld.
Advocate
For the union (Workman) : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld . Representative
INDUSTRY
: COAL
STATE
: WEST BENGAL
Dated - 06.12.12
AWARD
Inexercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 1-22012 113/ 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 11-7-06 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bankola Colliery of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in not giving the compassionate employment to the dependant of Late Lalkeshwar Bhulan . Trammer, who died while in service , is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the dependant of deceased workman is entitled to? "
Having received the Order of letter No.1.- 22012/ 113 / 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 11-07-06 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India . Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 20 of2006 was registered on 09-08-06 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .
On perusal of the case record , it has been found that the dependant of Late Lalkeshwar Bhulan has not yet appeared though Sri Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary of the Union appeared on 15-05-2012 and filed his attendance . Thereafter, he did not take any step in this case . Today, one Suresh Bhuiya appeared before the Court claiming himself as dependant of Late Lalkeshwar Bhulan , Trammer , but no document has been filed to show that he is actually legal heir of Late Lalkeshwar Bhulan . Today Sri Rakesh Kumar, who is present in Court , on enquiry by the Court , stated that after that he has no information from the dependant of Late Lalkeshwar Bhulan nor the said dependant came to him . The case record is put up today on the basis of the order of the Court though it is fixed on 14-02-13 . It has been submitted in the petition filed by Sri Suresh Bhuiya that he wants to withdraw the case as the management has expressed their view vide Letter No. BK/PD/ KSC/58 dated 24-11-2012 that the management will consider his employment only if the case is withdrawn Sri Bhuiya prayed for the withdrawal of the case , on perusal of record I find that the copy of the above mentioned letter has also not been filed by or on behalf of Sri Suresh Bhuiya .
Considering the whole facts and circumstances stated above , the present reference case is dismissed as the name of the dependant of Late Lalkeshwar Bhulan is notmentioned in the Schedule nor any document has been 1473
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
filed in this connection by the management . Hence the case is closed and accordingly the case stands dismissed.
Present:
: Ex-party.
Forthe applicant
ORDER
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as per above discussion . Send the copies of the order to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 465.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( सदर्भ संख्या 51/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| सं. एल -41012/54/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 465. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 51/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North - Western Railway and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 28-1-2013 .
[No. L -41012/54/2005 - IR ( B - I ) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
1.D. No. .51 /2006
SH. N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
Reference No. L-41012/ 54 /2005-1R(B -I ) dated: 18-05-2006
Smt . Grace
W/ o Shri Tarachand , C/o Mr. Gardner , 27A , Krishi Mandi , Dorai Vyawar Road , Ajmer ( Rajasthan )
V/s
ChiefManager (Factory) , North-Western Railway, Ajmer
For the Non - applicant Sh.Balwinder Singh .
AWARD
6-12-12
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) & 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudicatlon.-
" क्या नियोजक मुख्य कारखाना प्रबन्धक, उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे , अजमेर के द्वारा अपने कर्मकार ताराचन्द को पाननीय न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गए निर्णय से पूर्व ही रिमुअल फ्राम सर्विस ( Removal from Service) दिनांक 29-2-1980 को कर वेतन लाभ दिनांक29-2-1980 से कर्मकार की मृत्यु दिनांक 2-5-1996 तक नहीं दिया जाना एवं मृत्यु पश्चात् उसकी पत्नि को दिनांक 2-5-1996 से पेंशन एवं पेंशनरी लाभ नहीं दिया जाना उचित एवं वैद्य है ? यदि नहीं तो वह रेलवे प्रशासन से किस तरह से , कब से वेतन लाभ एवं पेंशनरी लाभ प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी है?
2. Pursuant to the reference order registered notices were issued to both the parties . Representative on behalf ofthe applicant filed statement of claim on 18-05-10 and reply to the claim statement was filed on 13-09-11 . At the stage of filing rejoinder and documents none appeared on behalf of the applicant on 4-06-12 . Therefore , ex - parte proceedings were drawn against the applicant on the said date and next date was fixed for evidence of the non- applicant.
3. Since , the applicant had not adduced any evidence in support of her claim and ex - parte proceedings were drawn against her, evidence was not adduced by the non - applicant also .
4.Heard learned representative on behalf of the non- applicant.
5. Initial burden was on the applicant to establish her case put forth in the statement of claim . The claim of the applicant has been denied by the non -applicant . The applicant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate her case . After ex - parte proceedings drawn against her on 4-6-12 the applicant did not turn up on subsequent dates 16-8-12, 25-9-12 and 4-12-12.
6. In above factual backdrop it appears that the applicant is not interested to contest the case further. There is no material on record to adjudicate the reference 1474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) )
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of December , 2012 under consideration on merits . Therefore , ' no claim award ' is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
7. Award as above .
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
1.The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/ 412/99 / IR ( B - 1 ) dated 17-2-2000/22-2-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: .....
नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Regional Office , Bilaspur in removing from services of Shri Vijay Kumar Jharia, Head Assistant is justified and legal . If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to ? "
का.आ. 466. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2000 ) कां प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/412/1999- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 466. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 54/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-1-2013 .
[No. L - 12012/412/ 1999- IR (B - I ) ]
2. The case of the workman , in short , is that he was appointed as cashier - cum - clerk in the year 1977 in the management Bank . His service was satisfactory during the entire period and was promoted time to time . He was working as a Head Assistant when he was terminated from services vide order dated 9-10-98 . He was charge- sheeted for the alleged misconduct . He denied the charges but the departmental proceeding was initiated. He was Regional Secretary of the State Bank of India Staff Congress Union till the year 1997. The Enquiry Officer conducted the proceeding . He was not given full opportunity to defend himself. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse , illegal and was not supported with the evidence . The Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 9-10-98 of termination from services . He preferred an appeal but the Appellate Authority without application of mind only modified the order of dismissal but infact no relief was granted to the workman . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with full back wages after setting aside the impugned order.
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/ R/54/ 2000
SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer
Shri Vijay Kumar Jharia ,
C/ o Shri D. D. Mishra ,
Daupara Chowk ,
Mungeli ,
Workman
Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
Versus
The Assistant General Manager ,
State Bank of India ,
Region- II , Nehru Chowk ,
Bilaspur(MP)
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia , is that admittedly he was appointed as cashier- cum- clerk in the State Bank of India on 4-11-1977. Subsequently he was promoted as Head clerk and was posted at Pendra Road Branch of the Bank. While he was working there , he committed gross misconduct. He was chargsheeted on 24-6-94 . The workman admitted the charge and requested for clemency. The Disciplinary Authority considering his firstmisconduct imposed the punishment of " warning" in terms of Para 521 ( 5 ) (B) of Sastry Award. He did not improve hisconduct and again passed a forged cheque . He was again charge sheeted on 25-7-1994 . He gave reply denying the charges . The Disciplinary Authority initiated a departmental proceeding . After enquiry, he was found guilty of gross misconduct and was punished by the Disciplinary Authority by imposing a punishment of bringing down to lower stage by two increments for two years in terms of Para 521 ( 5 )( C) of Sastry Award . The workman preferred an appeal and Appellate Authority upheld the decision . He again committed gross misconduct
...Management 1475 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
of charges . The papers of departmental proceeding shows that the witnesses had supported the charges . There is no reason to interfere in the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It appears that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse. This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
7. Issue No. III
Itisan admitted fact that the workman was charge- sheeted earlier also on two occasions. At the first instance , he admitted the charges and taking it leniently so . that he would amend himself and only warning was awarded . Subsequently again he committed misconduct which was proved in the departmental proceeding . He was thereafter imposed the punishment by bringing down to lower stage by two increments for two years . This shows that the previous conduct of the workman was not satisfactory. Again he committed misconduct and the same was established in the departmental proceeding . Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal which was reduced in appeal as removal from service by the AppellateAuthority. Considering the above circumstances ofthe case , I donot find any reason to interfere in order of punishment awarded by the Appellate Authority. I find and hold that the punishment awarded to the workman is just, proper and appropriate to the offence committed by him. This issue is also decided against the workman and in favour of the management .
in the year 1995 relating to the consumer loans and the dress provided to the subordinate employees . He was suspended and was chargesheeted on 8-11-1996. He denied the charges but the Disciplinary Authority initiated a departmental proceeding against him. He was given full opportunity to defend himself. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28-1-1998 holding him guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary Authority after perusing the entire enquiry issued a showcause on 20-7-98 proposing the punishment ofdismissal under Para 521 ( 10 ) (B ) of the Sastry Award and gave opportunity of personal hearing . Lastly the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 13-8-98 dismissing Shri Jharia from services . The order was served on him on 9-10-98 . He preferred an appeal on 26-11-98 . The Appellate Authority after giving him opportunity of personal hearing took a lenient view and commuted the punishment of dismissal to removal from service in terms of Sastry Award Para 521 ( 5 ) ( B) vide order dated 10-6-1999 . Because of modification of the punishment, the workman became entitled to get Contributory Provident Fund ( CPF) in lieu of his own Contribution . The workman has already accepted the amount of CPF and other terminal dues to the tune of Rs.3,32,322 without protest and therefore he is stopped from challenging the Appellate Order. It is stated that there is no illegality in imposing punishment on the workman . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management.
8. Issue No. IV
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed on recast for adjudication-
On the basis of the discussion made above , I find that the action of the management is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered .
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and proper?
9. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .
II . Whether there is any perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer?
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2013
III . Whether the punishment of removal from service of the workman is harsh and disproportionate to the charges proved?
IV. To what relief the workman is entitled ?
5. Issue No. I
का.आ. 467. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 213/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
This issue is taken up as preliminary issue . After hearing the parties and after perusing the record and the papers of the departmental proceedings , it is held that the departmental proceeding conducted by the management is legal , valid and proper vide order dated 28-10-2010 . Thus this issue is already earlier decided against the workman and in favour of the management .
[सं. एल -41011 / 71/1992- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी 6. Issue No. II
New Delhi , the 28th January, 2013
S.O. 467. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 213 / 1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Theworkman has raised the propriety of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It appears that there were three charges. The enquiry Officer had found the charge nos . 1 and 3 as proved and the charge No. 2 is partly proved . No. fresh evidence is adduced before the Tribunal on the point 1476
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of S. E. Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-1-2013 .
[No. L-41011 /71 / 1992 - IR ( B - 1 ) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT / LC/R/213/96
Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN
Shri SagirAli ,
S/ o Mohd . Basir Ali ,
Qr. No. 90 -A,
Rly. Colony,
...Workman Bhilai - 3 , Distt . Durg ( MP)
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
S. E. Rly. , Bilaspur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of December, 2012
1.TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L-41011 / 71 /92 - IR( B- 1 ) dated 20-12-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the management of DRM , South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur MP in terminating the services of Shri Sagir Ali and nine others is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"
2.The case of the workmen in short is that they have filed separate statement of claims but the facts of these workmen are same . It is stated that they were appointed by the S.E. Railway, Bilaspur Division in between February and March , 1990 and worked for one to three months be fore termination on different dates . Thereafter their services were terminated without assigning any reason and without giving any notice in contrary to the principle of natural justice . Subsequently it was intimated that the services of the workmen alongwith 150 workers were terminated on the ground that they had obtained employment on furnishing false certificates and documents . The ground of termination is a stigma and these workmen are entitled to be provided opportunity of hearing before termination. Out of 150 employees , some persons filed application under Section 19 before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur and they have been reinstated by the CAT, Jabalpur in various separate applications . It is stated that heir termination is illegal and the management be directed to reinstate them with back wages.
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , interalia, is that the General Manager , SE Railway had accorded sanction of900 posts of casual labour for Bilaspur Division with a direction to take only old faces who are borne in the approved list of casual / live register . A memorandum was issued directing the applicants to submit their past working certificate / caste certificate . The screening was conducted and a list was published wherein it was clearly mentioned that if the working certificate/ caste certificate and service certificates would be found false at any time during their engagement , their services would be terminated automatically without any notice . The past service certificates were subsequently found false during the course of detailed scrutiny and their services were terminated . The matter was raised by some of the persons before the CAT, Jabalpur. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur directed the Railway Administration to hold an enquiry into the matter after giving proper opportunity to the applicants /workers . Accordingly the Railway Administration nominated an Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and gave opportunity of hearing to the workers other than these workmen and after completion of the enquiry submitted his report. It is stated that the workers were asked to submit documents but they didnot file any document in their claim . Hence they were terminated vide order dated 24-11-98. It is submitted that there is no merit in the claim of the workmen and the same be dismissed .
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed on recast for adjudication-
I. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is legal , valid and proper?
II . Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmer in reference is justified?
III . To what relief the workme is entitled ?
5. Issue No. I
Thisissue is taken up as preliminary issue . The order dated 16-3-2012 clearly shows that it is held that no proper departmental enquiry was held and therefore it was found not proper, legal and valid . Thus this issue is already decided on 16-3-2012 in favour of the workmen and against the management .
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1477
भारत का. राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
6. Issue No. II
shows that he had worked earlier as per the requirement of the scheme and he had not been given opportunity to defend himselfwhile terminating him from service .
Now the important point for determination is as to whether the action of the management in terminating their services is justified . The following facts are admitted by the parties.
1. These workmen were appointed by the S.E.Railway, Bilaspur Division in the year 1990 and worked for one to three months .
2. Subsequently they were intimated that their services alongwith 150 employees were terminated on the ground of producing false certificates and documents .
9. Another workman Shri M.Appa Rao has also supported his case . He has also corroborated other witnesses that he was appointed as per scheme and worked two to three months . Another workman Shri K.Kundal Rao is also on the same point . He has stated that he had given service certificate of Umaria . Another workman Shri D.Ishwar Rao has also supported that he worked earlier in 1980 at Kumhari and certificate was given by Shri Murty PW I. His evidence also shows that he was not noticed before termination on the allegation of false certificate.
3. No proper departmental enquiry was held before terminating them nor any notice was given before termination .
4. Similarly situated workers filed application before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur against their termination.
5. These workers had worked only for one month to three months during employment of the management .
10. The workmen Shri U.P. Chalpat Rao , Shri ishwarlal and Shri B.GR.Rao are also on the same point . Thus the oral evidence of the workmen clearly shows that they had worked previously and service certificates and casual cards were issued to them by the PWI . It is also clear from their evidence that again he was employed in the services of the management on the basis of past service . It is also evident that they had been terminated without giving them opportunity to properly heard for defending the allegation of misconduct that they had furnished false certificates or casual cards. It appears to be a stigma on the character of the workmen and the principle of natural justice is required to be followed before terminating from the services .
7. According to the workmen , they were terminated from services by the management after making allegation of obtaining employment by producing false certificates and documents as such there was an allegation of misconduct against the workmen. Admittedly they had not been given proper opportunity to defend themselves . On the other hand , the management has contended that a memorandum was issued wherein it was mentioned that theapplicants/ workmen had to enclose their past service certificates alongwith applications and if the working certificates , caste certificate and service certificate are found false at any time during their engagement , their services will be terminated automatically without any notice . It is stated that their service certificates were found false and their services were terminated .
11. The workmen have also adduced documentary evidence in the case which is adm itted by the management. Exhibit W/ lseries are engagement of casual gangman engagement letters which were issued on different dates in Feb.1990 whereby these workmen were engaged named in the reference vide Office Letter no . E/G E/ Rect/ CI/IV/ Engg./Gang dated 14-2-90 . This engagement letter further shows that they were engaged as casual Gangmen on daily rate of pay and those who had attained the temporary status and got CPC Scale of Pay will be eligible to gel the CPC Scale of pay. This engagement letter also shows that they were engaged in terms of the office letter No. Dated 14-2-90. Thus the documentary evidence adduced by the workmen clearly indicates that they were engaged in terms of the office letter No. quoted above and were casual gangmen on daily rate of pay. The said office tetter is not filed by the workmen but the management has filed which is to be discussed later and is ExhibitM/3 .
8. The important question is as to whether it is established that the service certificates or working certificates furnished by the workmen were false and fake . the workmen are examined in the case . The workman Sagir All has supported his case . He has stated that he worked from Feb 1980 to May 1980 at Bhilai under Kader , IOW who gave him casual card which he had deposited when circular was issued . He denied that the casual card is fake and false . His evidcencc shows that he was terminated on the allegation of false casual card but no notice was given to him before termination to prove the genuinety of casual card . Another workman K. Limapati Maheshwar Rao has also supported his case . He has also stated that earlier he worked at Raipair under PWI Shri Murty and Shri Murty had signed over his casual card . He has further stated that he was again employed under a scheme . His evidence
12. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence in the case. It is not out of place to say that the workmen were admittedly terminated from the services solely on the ground that the alleged service certificates and casual cards submitted by the workmen were fake and false . Since this allegation is asserted by the management in the pleading and therefore
537 GI /2013-20 [PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALLGUNA 4 , 1934
1478
that the records and documents were stolen away nor the list of documents and files were submitted which was prepared at the place , nor the progress or the result of the investigation of the police is filed . Simply oral evidence that the record and documents had been stolen away is not sufficientto prove that the allegation of theft of the management is true . He has futher stated at para - 14 that again the certificates of Shri Sagir Ali and K. Umapati Mahesh Rao were examined by Unit office of Senior Section Engineer (P. Way) Umaria and declared the certificates as false . It is surprising that at one stage this witness has stated that the documents of the workers and files of investigation were stolen away, then as to how the management got certificates of these two employees . Moreover the report is simply not tenable unless and until the person who had submitted the report is not examined. The management did not care to examine the person who had examined and gave the report . This part of the evidence of this witness is not reliable and acceptable .
the burden is on the management to prove that service certificates and casual cards were fake and false . The management has examined two witnesses in the case . The management witness Shri Vikas Kumar is working as Section Officer, Umaria. He has come to support the case ofthe management . He has proved the report of Inspector ofWorks , Bhilai ( Exhibit M/l ) but he was not competent to prove the same as he doesnot know as to who had signed over the same . He has stated that he was posted as Section Engineer from 2-5-2000 . At para - 13 he has stated that he hasdeposed onthe basis of the record which is filed before the Tribunal . This clearly shows that he has no personal knowledge nor he had examined or verified any of the service certificates and casual cards filed by the workmen before the management . He has further stated that he had not seen any verification report . He has stated at para - 12 that experience certificate of Sagir Ali was of Bhilai and on thebasis of verification report , the certificate is fake and false which is Exhibit M/ l but Exhibit M / l is not properly proved by this witness nor the maker of the report is examined by the management . As such the said verification cannot be relied . He has further stated that he does not know the documents of other nine workmen which were submitted by them . He does not know as to whether any notice or enquiry was conducted against these workmen . He appears to be not competent to prove that Service Certificates and Casual Cards filed by the workmen were take and false on the basis of which they were terminated from the services . It appears that the management has taken it very casualy and also has not examined competent witness who is said to have granted service cards and certificates or who had verified the certificates . His evidence is not trustworthy to be considered in the case .
14. The learned counsel for the workman has submitted that the pleading of the management is that as perRailway Boards instruction , the General Manager , SE Railway had accorded sanction of 900 posts of casual labour for Bilaspur Division- to engage the old faces who are borne in the approved list of casual/ live register at that time. This itself shows that the management had approved list of casual / live register. It is clear that on the basis of approved list and live register, these applications of the workers were entertained and they were engaged as gangmen . The management has intentionally concealed thatapproved list of casual labour and live register as to whether the names of these workmen are recorded in Live Register or not . There is no case that the old faces who are borne in the approve list of casual / live register had been stolen away. Thus the oral evidence adduced by the management is not able to sufficiently prove that the certificates and casual cards of these workmen are fake and false.
15. The management has also adduced documentary evidence . Exhibit M /l is a report given by one Sudhakar Rao , Sr. Clerk . This document is not properly proved by the management witness Shri Vikash Kumar. In cross- examination at para - 10 he has stated that he did not identify the signature on the report Shri Sudhakar Rao is also not examined in the case Simply report without examination of the maker of the report , is inadmissible . This document is not fit to be relied in evidence . Exhibit M /2 is the engagement of casual gangmen letter dated 20-2-90 whereby the workmen Sagir Ali , K. Umapati M. Rao were appointed. The workman has also filed this document which is marked as Exhibit W/l The relevancy is already earlier discussed . Exhibit M/ 3 is the office letter No. E/GE/ Rect/Cl . IV /Engg/Gang dated 14-2-90 whereby the applications were invited on the terms and conditions of 13.Another witness Shri L.R. Gupta is also working as Sectiori Engineer and is also officer - in- charge of the case. He has stated that these workmen were appointed in the Railways in the year 1990 as casual gangman in accordance with the notification who has previously worked as casual labour in the Railways Organisation . He has further stated that the department carried out mass verification of the certificates and on detailed investigation after scruitinizing of records , the certificates of 140 candidated were found fake . The management has failed toproduce in Court any verification reports nor the detailed investigation report is filed to substanitiate the charges thatservice cards and service certificated are false and fake. In absence of documentary evidence , the oral evidence of this witness is not reliable . He has further stated at para - 7 that those records and documents were stoled away from the chamber/office of the Investigation officer, APO/BSP Bhasker Rao and the management lodged FIR at Thana Torwa Police Station, Bilaspur and submitted a list of documents and file name list which were stolen. Thisfact is also not corroborated by filing the copy of FIR nor Shri Bhasker Rao is examined to corroborate the fact [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1479 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
New Delhi , the 29th January, 2013
S.O. 468.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 227/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 29-1-2013 .
old faces who had earlier worked with the management . It is true that there was a prerequisite condition that if the working certificate/caste certificatc/ service certificates will be found false , their engagement will be terminated automatically without notice. The discussion made above clearly shows that the management has failed to prove thattheir certificates or casual cards are fake and false . It also appears that it is an allegation of misconduct , such as in any case the principle of natural justice is required to be followed . Thus this issue is decided in favour of the workmen and against the management .
[No. L- 12012/411 /99- IR ( B - I ) ]
16. Issue No. II
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DELHI
I.D. No.227/2011
Shri Sain Singh C/ o Shri Som Singh PNB , Zonal Training Centre A-28 , Kailash Colony, NewDelhi .
...Claimant
Versus
The Branch Manager, State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur, Janakpuri Branch , C- 14, Janakpuri , New Delhi .
...Management
AWARD
On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the action of the management is not justified in terminating the services of the workmen without giving sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and without proving sufficiently that the certificates are fake and false , It also appears from the record that during the pendency ofthe reference proceeding , the workman Shri Ishwarlal died and his legal heirs are substituted on the record. Moreover there is no case of the workmen that after termination they are not in gainful employment. They have also not adduced any evidence on the said point . Considering all these aspects in the case, the management isdirected to reinstate the workmen without back wages . However if the management so decides , then he is at liberty to initiate a departmental enquiry of these workmen after giving them full opportunity to defend themselves on the point of genuineness of the service certificates or casual cards . Since the workmen Shri Ishwarlal died , it is proper to give compensation to the heirs of the deceased workman . As such the management is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000 ( Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) to the heirs of the deceased workman , Accordingly the reference is answered .
17. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2013
A daily wager on casual basis was engaged at it Janakpuri branch , New Delhi by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ( in short the bank) in exigencies . He was paid for actual days of his work . Work was taken from him at different spells from September 1995 till August 1997. From August 1997 to August 1998 , work was also taken from him intermittently. He was not engaged with effect from 24-08-1998 . When his engagement came to an end , he raised a demand for reinstatement in service . His demand was not conceded to . Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since his claim was contested by the bank , conciliation proceedings ended into a failure . On consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 12012/411 /99 - IR(B - I ), New Delhi , dated 17-02-2000 , with following terms:
का.आ. 468.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 227/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/411/99- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]
सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
"Whether the action of the Managing Director, State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur, Ahimsa Bhawan , Shankar Road, New Delhi and the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner &Jaipur, Janakpuri Branch, C- 14 , Janakpuri , New Delhi in stopping from duty all of a sudden to Shri Sain Singh , 1480
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
Casual workman , with effect from 24-08-1988 after serving the bank on casual basis from 24-09-1995 from time to time and continuously in Janakpuri branch from 16-08-1997 is justified , legal and valid ? If not , to what reliefhe is entitled to?"
ofthe claimant. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised representative , presented facts on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
2. Claim statement was filed by the daily wager , namely, Shri Sain Singh pleading that he was employedby the bank with effect from 24-09-1995 , as a peon . He was paid on daily rate basis initially at Rs.50- per day and later on at Rs.60 per day and lastly at Rs.70 per day. He worked atJanakpuri branch of the bank. Duties of a sub staff were taken from him . He worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. He demanded equal pay with that of regular employees . No action was taken on his request On the other hand , his services were terminated on 24-06-1998 . He had rendered continuous service with the bank. Neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof was given to him . Termination of his services is illegal and contrary to law. Auditors , in its report , have mentioned that he had worked as a peon on full time basis . He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
7. In his affidavit dated 21-08-2002 , tendered as evidence , claimant swears that he was employed in the bank as a peon since 24.09.1995. He was paid his wages at Rs.50 per day, which was later on enhanced to Rs.60 per day and lastly to Rs. 70 per day . He worked in Janakpuri branch of the bank . He was assigned different duties from time to time. He had worked to entire satisfaction of his superiors . He was informed that he was a casual employee . He demanded salary equal to a regular employee . His services were terminated on 26-06-1998 , without assigning any reason . No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him . Bank auditors , in their report , have mentioned that he was working as full time peon on regular basis but was paid daily wages at Rs.70.00 per day. During course of his cross examination , he concedes that no appointment letter was issued in his favour. He also admits that his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange . He admits that the audit report was not seen by him wherein it was mentioned that he was working as a full time employee but was paid as daily wager @ Rs . 70 per day .
8. In affidavit Ex.MW1 /A , tendered as evidence , Shri M.L.Khunger , unfolds that the claimant was engaged on contract basis for doing specific work like filling of water , arranging of statutory records and other miscellaneous work . He was never engaged as a peon . He worked for 12 days in 1996, 20 days in 1997 and 67 days in 1998. He never completed 240 days services in any calendar year. His engagement on few occasions would not confer status of regular employee on the claimant .
3. Bank demurred the claim , pleading that the claimant was engaged on contract basis to carry out some specified jobs . Casual work on various occasions was taken from him . He worked on 12 occasions in 1996 , in 1997 work for 2 days was taken from him and in 1998 he had worked for 67 days only. He was paid for work rendered by him . He was never engaged as a regular employee . The bank had to follow recruitment procedure for engagement ofa regular employee , which was not followed in the case ofthe claimant . Since he worked for intermittent period for short duration , he never completed 240 days service in any calendar year. Claimant has no right of being appointed as a sub staff in the bank. He has not pointed out as to when the auditors have reported that he rendered continuous sérvice with the bank . His claim to demand equal pay as applicable to a regular employee is unfounded . Claim for reinstatement in service , made by the claimant , is devoid of merits . It may be dismissed with costs .
4.Vide order No.Z -22019/6/2007- IR(C- II), New Delhi dated 11-02-2008 , the appropriate Government transferred the case to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II , New Delhi for adjudication . Vide order No.Z -22019/6/2007- IR(C- II) , New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 , the case was re -transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government .
5. Claimant has examined himself in support of his claim . Shri M.L. Khungar was examined by the bank to present its stand. No other witness was examined by either ofthe parties.
6.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.S. Saini , authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf
9. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those detailed by Shir Khunger are appreciated , it came to light that the claimant was engaged in Janakpuri branch ofthe bank for doing casual jobs . Though the claimant projects that he worked continuously at Janakpuri branch from 1995 , yet no evidence was adduced to show continuity of service for a period for 240 days in any of the calendar year . The bank had relied on copy of applications and payment vouchers , on the strength of which wages were released in favour of the claimant . Copy of those application and payment vouchers were not disputed by the claimant . When those payment vouchers as well as applications are scanned, it came to light that facts unfolded by Shri Khungar got reaffirmation . It is emerging over the record through those applications and payment vouchers that the claimant was engaged intermittently by the bank for doing casual jobs . He worked for 12 days in 1996, for which he was paid by the bank. Claimantworked for 20 days in 1997 for doing miscellaneous work. He was engaged for 67 days in 1998 .
1481 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
ocular testimony of the claimant shall be construed in the light of documents proved . It is a settled proposition of law that the claimant had to lead evidence to show that in fact he worked for 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date ofhis termination . Mere filing of affidavit cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the claimant had , in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. Burden to prove that he rendered service for 240 days or more , lies upon the claimant , when such claim is denied by the employer. Law to this effect was laid in Range Forest Officer (2002 LLR 339) Issen Deinki ( 2003 SC ( L & S) 113 ) , Rajasthan State Ganganagar's Mills Ltd. (2004 ( 103 ) FLR 192) and Municipal Corporation , Faridabad (2004 ( 8) SSC 195) .
13.workmen can discharge onus on him by adducing cogent evidence, which may be oral or documentary. In a case of an indusrial employee , possibility of not providing any appointment letter or wage slip , attendance register and termination letter by an empoyer cannot be ruled out . In case the workman wants the employer to produce the record and the latter opts not to produce it, the Tribunal may draw inference against the employer . In R.M. Yellatti (2006 ( 1 ) SCC 106 ) , Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition wherein law was laid as follows:
10. Question for consideration would be as to whether the claimant rendered continuous service of 240 days with the bank in preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his service? For an answer to this proposition , it would be ascertained as to what the phrase 'continuous service ' means . " Continuous Service " has been defined by section 25 -B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act) Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said section, " continuous service for a period may comprise of two period Viz . ( i ) uninterrupted service , and ( ii) interrupted service on account of ( a) sickness (b) authorized leave, (c) an accident , ( d ) a strike which is not legal , ( e) a lock- out, and ( f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman , shall be included in the "continuous service . " Sub - section (2 ) of the said section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service " within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for that period under an cmployer if he has actually worked for the days specifled in clauses ( a) and (b ) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab . I. C.1180 ) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub - section (2 ) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he canbe considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service , then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act .
11. In Ramakrishna Ramnath ( 1970( 2) LLJ 306 ) , Apex Court announced that when a workman renders continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar months , he is deemed to have completed one years' service in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations made by the Apex Court in that regard , which are extracted thus:
"Under Section 25 - B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed one year's service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment . These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under Section 25 - B has further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in the service ofthe employer for 240 days in the year" .
"Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However , applying general principles and on reading the afore - stated judgments , we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box . This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence , both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination . There will also be no receipt or proof of payment . Thus in most cases, the workman can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination , if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter onfacts of each case . The above decisions however make itclear that mere affidavits or self- serving statements made by the claimant/ workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge ofthe burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year 16 . The above judgments further lay down that mere non- production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management . Lastly, the above judgments lay 12. Inview of above law, an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman actually worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment . For an answer 1482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse . This exercise will depend upon facts of each case . "
14. The above position was again reiterated in recent judgements in Shyamal Bhowmik (2006 ( 1 ) SCC 337) , Sham Lal (2006 VIAD (SC ) 1 ) and Gangaben Laljibhai and others (2006 VI AD ( SC) 31 ) .
the bank in respect of that document . Therefore , prima facie an ordinary prudent man may say that it is a case where adverse inference should be drown against bank to the effect that it had not produced the audit report intentionally. However, there are certain inconsistent facts which are to be noted . Claimant nowhere specifies the date or period when the allged audit report was recorded . At one point of time , he claims that the audit report was recorded by Shri B.K. Khanna and subsequently , he presented that Shri K.N. Khanna recorded that report . Other facet, which has emerged over the record through copy of the applications moved by the claimant and payments released in his favour through vouchers , has already been noted . These documents highlight that the claimant worked for 12 days in 1996 , 20 days in 1997 and 67 days in 1998 Resultantly, I find that advers inference cann be drawn against the bank to: the effect that the claimant worked continuously with the bank for a period of 240 days in every calendar year , viz . 1996 , 1997 and 1998.
17. In his affidavit, claimant , unfolded self serving words relating to the period for which he worked with the bank . He had not adduced any evidence to the effect that he worked continuously for more than 240 days in any calendar year with the bank . He would have done so by producing copies of his applications , which he had submitted for release of his wages . Those applications would have facilitated this Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion relating to the period for which the claimant had worked . He intentionally withheld evidence which ought to have been in his possession . Under these circumstances , I am constrained to conclude that the claimant has miserably failed to establish that he worked for a period of 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged engagement by the bank . Under these circumstances , provisions of Section 25 F of the Act does not come into application . As projected by the claimant , he was engaged as a casual labour. He could not show that some person hisjunior to him was also engaged as casual labour by the bank . In such a situation , procedure for retrenchment as provided under Section 25 G of the Act could not be followed . Since none was employed by the bank after the claimant provisions of Section 2511 of the Act also does not come into play. Act of the bank in not engaging the claimant for another spell is not violative of the provisions ofthe Act . Claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim is liable to be brushed aside .
15. Here in the case , claimant presents that audit report was not produced by the bank wherein it was mentioned that he was working as a full time employee but paid as daily wager @ Rs.70 per day. It . was argued by Shri Saini that despite opportunities given , bank had withheld: the audit report . Shri Saini claimed that in these circumstances , adverse inference may be drawn against the bank and audit report proved as Ex . WW1 / 7 may be read against them . To rebut submissions made by Shri Saini , Shri Arora ; presents that Ex . WW 1/7 is a fabricated document and it cannot be read in evidence. He highlights that applications and vouchers: which bear writings as well as signature of the claimant , bring it over the record that the claimant was engaged intermittently for casual jobs . Ex . WW 1/7 has been perused by me . This document seems to be a part of a report . As is emerging over the record , various objections were raised on the working of the bank . One objection relates to unauthorised engagement of the claimant on the post of peon . It has been mentioned therein that the claimant was engaged on dailywage basis @ Rs.50.00 per day upto December 96, @ Rs.60 per dayfrom January to February, 1997 , and Rs.70/- perday from 1st March , 97 onwards . Though document speaks that the clairnant has been working unauthorizedły as a peon on regular basis but it nowhere mentions details of the period for which he was engaged. Furthermore , it has not been pointed out therein as upto what period claimant worked with the bank . It is also mentioned that the claimant was paid in different names . It is not detailed as to how it came to light that the claimant was paid by the bank in different names . Claimant admits that he himself has not seen the audit report . Signature of the person , who recorded this report , does not appear on the document . Some initial purports to appear on it , but it cannot be said as to who had put it . The document is incomplete and lacks credibility. No evidence is brought forward as to from what source this incomplete document was procured. Under these circumstances , genuineness and authenticity ofthis document cannot be confirmed . EX.WW1 /7 does not get status of legally admissible evidence .
16. Bank claims that audit report was not traceable . Such a claim cannot be said to be justified . It seems that the bank intentionally opted not to produce the audit report before this Tribunal . No privilege was claimed by
18. Assuming for sake of arguments that the claimant had shown a case in his favour,by way of presumption of facts and drawing an adverse inference against the bank , a question would arise as to whether he is to be reinstated in the service of the bank . Answer lies in negative . As projected above , the claimant was engaged as a casual labour intermittently. Procedure for recruitment against a [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1483
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
regular post of sub - staff was not followed . His engagement was dehors the rules . with such a situation the Apex Court was confronted in Uma Devi (2006 (4) SCC I ) wherein it considered the propositionas to whether the persons who got employment , without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the Court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts which were held by them in temporary or adhoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus:
"With respect , why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , in our view, is bound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent the distinction between regularization and making permanent was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect the directions made in Piara Singh (1992 (4 ) SCC 118 ) is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of the said judgement therein . With great respect , it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision . Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad -hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent . "
19. Taking note of some of recent decisions the Apex Court held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution . The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela (2006 ( 2 ) SCC 482 ) with approval , wherein it was ruled thus.
"The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of a selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee , whose members are fair and impartial , through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates . who have applied in response to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible candidate get their names registered .Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution " .
20. In P. Chandra shekhara Rao and other (2005 (7) SCC 488 ) the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's case (supra) with approval . It also relied the decision in Uma Rani (2004( 7) SOC 112) and ruled that no regularization is permissible inexercise of statuotry powers conferred in Article 162 of the constitution, if the appointment have been made in contravation of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh (2006 (5 ) SCC493 ) the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized . In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007 ( 1 ) SCC 408 ) the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regulaisation of temporary employees dehors the rules , nor can it direct continuation ofservice of a temporary employee ( whether called a casual , ad - hoc or daily rated employee ) or payment of regular salaries to them .
21. In Uma Devi (supra) it was laid that when a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure , he is aware of the consequence of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature . Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed for the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure or selection in any concerned cases, in consultation with the public service commission . Therefore , the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees . It cannot also be held that the State held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent . The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise . It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being made permanent in the post . In view of those precedent neither continuance nor regularisation of services of the claimants can be ordered, since it would amount to back door entry into Government job .
22. In view of foregoing reasons , it is evident that the claim put forward by the claimant for reinstatement in the service of the bank is uncalled for. It deserves dismissal . His claim is accordingly dismissed . An award is passed in favour of the bank and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .
Dated: 5-12-2012
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 1484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2013
4.The Managing Director . M/ s . Right Tunneling Ltd.. Village Kayan . PO Slapper . Tehsil Sundernagar , Mandi - 171002.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the , workman None.
For the Management Sh . V.P. Singh for'resp . No.1 & 4 .
का.आ. 469. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैनेजमैन्ट ऑफ कोलडैम हाईड्रो इलेक्ट्रिकपावर प्रोजक्ट और अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , चडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 158/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Sh . Hem Raj Sharma for Resp . No.2
[सं. एल -42012/221/2010- आई आर ( डी यू) ]
AWARD
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
Passed on 17.12.2012
New Delhi , the 29th January, 2013
Central Government vide Notification No. 142012/ 221/ 2010 - IR( DU ) ) Dated 4-4-2011 . by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub - section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and Sub- section ( 2 - A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act .. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: - S.O. 469 .--- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 158/ 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Koi Dam Hydro Electric Power Project & Others and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 15-1-2013 .
[No. L-42012/221 /2010 - IR ( DU ) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
"Whether the action of the management M /s . Right Tunneling Ltd. , Sub- Contractor of M/ s.UR Infrastructure Co. Pvt . Ltd. a sub- contractor of M/ s . Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. in the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project of NTPC , Barmana , Bilaspur ( HP) vide their order dated 15-9-2008 in terminating the services of Sh . Tek Chand S/o Sh . Bal Bahadur without following the principle of' Last come First go ' is legal and justified? What relief theworkman is entitled to ? "
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT II , CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D.158 /2011
After receiving the reference notices were issued to the parties . Respondent No.1 , 2 and 4 put in their appearance but claimant and the respondent No.3 did not turn up despite registered notice sent to them on 24-7-2011 . Notices were not received back undelivered also . Hence the service was presumed on them . Workman and respondent No.3 remained absent on subsequent dates also .
Registered on 24-5-2011
Shri Kiran Barman S/ o Sh . Jyotish Barman , C/ o Sh . Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee Mandi , 221/10 , Thanera Mohalla, Mandi .
...Petitioner
Versus
On6-6-2012 however it was noticed that in the Schedule the concerned workman has been described as Tek Chand S/ o Sh . Bal Bahadur, while in the array of the parties at Serial No.6' workman has been described as Kiran BarmanS/ o of Sh . Jyotish Barman . Hence , a letter was written to the Ministry for necessary amendments in the reference as per order dated 6-6-2012 But no order was received from the Ministry till today.
1. The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC , VPO Barmana, Bilaspur .
2. Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Corporation Ltd. , Koi Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayan, PO Slapper, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi .
Since the workman arrayed at Serial No.6 of the parties in the reference has failed to appear and file claim statement . Hence , a " No Dispute " award is passed in the case. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
3.M/ s . U.R. Infrastructure Company Private Ltd. ,Villiage Chamb, PostOffice Harnora, Bilaspur.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer 1485 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2013
(2) Shri . D.P.Todkar, Advocate for the second party
AWARD
(Delivered on 19th day of December, 2012 )
1. The present reference has been referred by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment . Central Government , New Delhi for deciding the question : ---
का.आ. 470. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट मास्टर , पलटन सब डिविजन , सतारा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , सतारा ( महाराष्ट्र ) के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of the post office Phaltan , Dist. Satara in terminating the services of their workman- Shri Sunil Shamrao Sonvalkar w.e.f.14-12-2005 is legal and justified?" [ सं. एल-40011/20/2006- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th January, 2013
2. In response to the notices issued to the parties, the second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex. U- 11 .
3 The facts in brief of statement of claim are as under :--
S.O. 470. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Satara as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Superintendent of Postmaster, Phaltan Sub Division , Satara and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-1-2013 .
[No. 1-40011 /20/2006 - IR ( DU ) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDGE , LABOUR COURT, MAHARASHTRA , AT SATARA
(PRESIDED OVER BY P. M. KHAMBAYATE)
Reference( IDA) No. 37/2007
The first party is the department of post at Phaltan , District Satara and is an industry within the meaning of Sec.2 (j ) of the 1.D.Act. The second party himself is the workman within the meaning of Sec.2 ( s ) of the 1.D.Act . He was appointed by the first party as a Postman w.e.f. 11-5-2004. He was also directed by the first partyto perform the work of post master and he was doing the said work . He was doing the duties regularly, but the first party has shown artificial breaks in his service with malafide intention . His service record is clean and satisfactory still he was not confirmed in service . The first party terminated him w.e.f. 14-12-2005 . Prior to said termination , prior notice of onemonth was not issued to him nor the notice pay in lieu of notice was paid nor any compensation was paid to him. No chargesheet was issued to the second party and no departmental enquiry was conducted.
Between
Department of Post Master
Phaltan Sub Division Phaltan . Tal. Phaltan Distt. Satara
Firstparty
Through The Superintendent of Pos
And
Shri Sunil Shamrao Sonvalkar
AtPo . Vadal
Second party
Tai . Phaltan Dist . Satara
4 After termination of second party, first party recruited another temporary employee namely Mr. 1.T. Lalge. The second party requested the Regional Labour Commissioner Pune to settle the dispute . However, it was not settled. The second party has no source of income . Hetried to search another job , but did not get . Hence he is facing financial problem. Hence he prayed to declare his termination by the first party as illegal and the order of termination to set aside . He further prayed for reinstatement to his original post with continuity in service with full back wages .
Coram: P. M. Khambayate , PresidingOfficer
Labour Court , Satara .
5. The first party has filed its written statement at Ex.14. It is admitted that the department of post is an ' industry' and its employees are governed by the Central Civil Services Rules 1965. Hence the question does not arises for the present reference under Industrial Disputes Advocates:-( 1 ) Shri . M.R.Pawar, Advocate for the first party 1486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
Reasons
9. The second party examamined himself at Ex . 27 and closed his evidence . The first party examined Mr. Umesh Shankarrao Janwade - the Assistant Superintendent of Post at Ex. 38 and closed his evidence .
As to Issue No. 1 : -
Act . It is submitted that the second party was temporary engaged by the first party as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster w.e.f. 11-5-2004 to work in stop gap arrangement as the regular employee Mr. Wadale was kept off duty w.e.f. 22-4-2004. Mr. Vadale was removed from service w.e.f. 16-1-2006 . The alleged post is permanent and is vacant from 16-1-2006 . The second party was aware about the temporary provisional appointment and submitted written applicationdtd. 10-5-2004 accepting therein to be terminated at any time . He submitted that as per the GDS (Conduct & Employment ) Rules 2001 , the break period is required to be observed when the outsiders are engaged in Gramin Dak Sevak category. Hence when the break was given to the second party, he has not worked during the break period. According to first party, second party has not worked for more then 240 days in a calendar year.
6. According to the first party, the appointment of second party is purely on temporary basis as no recruitment formalities were followed. Hence there is no question of issuing one month's notice or of paying any compensation. He admitted that after termination of second party workman , one Mr. J.T. Lalge has been appointed as a regular Gramin Dak Sevak. It is specifically submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case is applicable to the present case. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of case of second party with cost.
7. On the rival pleadings of the parties , issues have been framed by my Learned Predecessor at Ex . 16. I have given findings to them for the reasons discussed below.
Issues
Findings
..Negative
( 1 ) Whether the second party was appointed purely on temporary basis with his due consent by first party workman department ?
...Affirmative
(2) Whether the termination dtd. 14-12-2005 is illegal ?
(3) Whether the second party isentitled for the relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service?
10.According to the first party, the second party workman was appointed on purely temporary basis with the consent of second party. In support of the said contention , the first party examined Assistant Superintendent of Post namely Mr. Umesh Shankarrao Janwade at Ex. 38. His evidence shows that for making any appointment in the department , it used to be done by publishing an advertisement , to take written test and oral test . The second party workman was not appointed as per the said process , but his appointment was of stop gap arrangement . He pointed towards the application of the second party - workman , which is at Ex . 39 wherein it is contended that in para- 5 his appointment will be seasonal and temporary and he will not claim if Mr. Vadale is taken onwork. It is further submitted in the said application that in case if Mr. Vadale is not taken in service and if the second party workman is not considered for permanent appointment he will hand over the charge to the person to be appointed in the place of Mr. Vadale . Relying on the said application , the learned advocate for the first party argued that the second party - workman has himself bound by the obligation and hence according to him, there was a consent of second party - workman for the temporary service in place of Mr. Vadale , who was under suspension . The said agrument cannot be accepted, as the question arises as to who did ask the said workman to write such an application ? The temporary vacancy of post of Mr. Vadale was only known to the first party. Hence it is inferred that all the information in the application must have been supplied by the first party. If the first party employer wanted to put any obligation there should be an order to that effect showing that the appointment of the second party was temporary and was on the stop gap arrangement during the suspension period of Mr. Vadale . But no such order has produced by the first party. There is no evidence by the witness of the first party that, any such order was issued . Under such circumstances , it cannot be inferred that as per the application of the second party - workman he was appointed on stop gap arrangement or that his appointment was temporary.
..reinstatement with Continuity of service but without back wages .
(4) What order ?
..As per final order.
Admitted Facts:-
8. The second party workman was appointed on 11-5-2004 as a Post master Gramin Dak Sevak . After his termination , Mr. J.T. Lalge has been appointed in his place .
11. The learned advocate for the first party pointed towards the evidence of witness of first party ( Ex.38 ), which shows that during the period from 14-6-2005 to 16-6-2005 and 19-9-2005 to 23-9-2005 the second party workman has not worked . Relying on the said evidence , he argued that, as the workman was not continuous in service, his appointment was of temporary nature . The said argument 1487 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन4, 1934
cannot be accepted , as this witness during his cross examination at page no . 6 admitted that , during the said periods , the service break was given to the second party. Under such circumstances , the alleged application at Ex . 39 is not sufficient to draw the inference that the appointment of the second party- workman was on temporary basis , as there is no appointment order produced by the first party showing that the appointment was temporary. Hence I answer this issue in the negative .
15. The learned advocate for the second party- workman further argued that as there is no reason for the two artificial breaks , one is of3 days and another is of five days, the service of the second party should be presumed as continuous one from the date 11-5-2004 to 14-12-2005, which is more than 240 days. For that purpose , the learned advocate for the second party Mr. Todkar relies on the case law in The Zilla Parishad , Nagpur and another Vs Moreshwar, S/o Vithobji Mendhekar and another reported in 2004 LAB . IC 2505 .
As to Issue No. 2:---
In the reported case , the respondent no. I i.e. workman was appointed on 5-12-1984 . He wroked upto 15-5-1986 as a Waterman . But the break of one or two days was given in his service in each month. 18 appointment orders were issued to the workman in order to give breaks of one or two days . Under such circumstances , it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that-
The appointment of the respondent no . I cannot be considered to be for a fixed period so as to make clauses (bb) and ( oo ) applicable .
In para- 16 , it is observed by the Hon'ble High Court that
12. It isadmitted fact that the second party -workman was appointed as a Postman- cum- Post Master w.e.f. 11-5-2004 . The evidence of the second party- workman at Ex . 27 shows that , since his appointment dated 11-5-2004, he was doing his duties regularly. However, the first party has shown the breaks in the service without any reason . First party witness has not given evidence as to during which period , the break was given , However, during the cross examination of the witness of first party namely Mr. Umesh Shankarrao Janwade ( Ex . 38 ) it came on record that the breaks were given to the service of second party during the periods from 14-6-2005 to 17-6-2005 and from 19-9-2005 to 23-9-2005 . It is further inferred from his cross examination that except the above two breaks , the second party workman was continuous in service from 11-5-2004 to 14-12-2005 .
In the instant case , there is no dispute that the respondent no . I was neither given one month's notice nor he has been paid wages in lieu of notice . So also , he has not been paid compensation at the time of retrenchment .
The petitioner having failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of 1.D. Act , the respondent no.1 is deemed to have been continued in service and the termination of his service would be illegal void ab initio.
16. In the present case before this Court , two artificial breaks were given . One is of three days and another is of five days . No cogent reason has been given . Hence the said breaks were the artificial breaks . The second partywas retrenched on 14-12-2005 without holding the enquiry, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him . The one month's notice was not issued to him , nor he has been paid wages in lieu of notice . Hence the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is fully applicable to the facts of this case . Hence relying on the observation of Hon'ble High Court, it is inferred that the second party workman is deemed to have been continuous in service for a period from 11-5-2004 to 14-12-2005 and the termination of his service is illegal and void ab initio and as such he has completed the continuous service of more than240 days .
17. However, the learned advocate for the first party relies on the case law in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others and Uma Devi and Others reported in 2006 ( 109 ) FLR 826 wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme 13. The witness of first party during his cross examination clarified that the post on which the second party was appointed was vacant post . It is sanctioned post. In the written statement at Ex . 14 , it is submitted by the first party that Mr. Lalge has been appointed in the place ofthe second party. The witness of first party clarified during cross examination that the appointment of Mr. Lalge has not been done as per the recruitment process . Hence it is inferred that after the termination of second party workman, the first party appointed Mr. Lalge on the said post . The said post is the sanctioned post and was vacant. The learned advocate for the second party argued that Mr. Lalge was appointed only with a view to deprive the second paty of his rights. He contended that it is already proved that the second party was continuous in service from 11-5-2004 to 14-12-2005 except the two breaks , one is ofthree days and second is of five days . It is also admitted by the witness of the first party that , as it was not possible to continue a temporary employee for more than 90 days the above two breaks were given. Hence according to learned advocate for the second party, they were artificial breaks . I do agree with his argument as no cogent reason has been given by the first party about the breaks . There is no reason that the workman was guilty of any misconduct . There is no reason that the workman was absent . Hence both the breaks in service are illegal .
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Court chat , the temporary employment cannot be resorted defeat the very basic Constitutional Scheme of public mployment.
21. The cross examination of the workman i.e. second party at Ex . 27 shows that he was doing the labour work and was getting Rs . 150 per day . He denied that he did not make any application for getting the work or service . However, though he denied it, but has not produced any document on record to show that he made any application for getting the service . Hence it is not proved by him that he tried to get the service .
18. However , the learned advocate for the second party clies on the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court these Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation A Aar Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana ported in 2009 III CLR 262 wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that--
The question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Act denuded of the statutory status by the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi 2006 11 CLR 261 SC , Supreme Court held it in negative.
22. It is admitted fact that the complainant was terminated w.e.f. 14-12-2005 . The learned advocate for the first party argued that the second party did not approach the Court or the Labour Commissioner immediately. The reference order at Ex . I shows that the reference was sent tothe Asstt . Commissioner of Labour Pune on 17-11-2006 . Hence he must have applied to the Central Authority immediately. However , there is no evidence by the second party that he tried to get the employment . Hence he is not entitled for the back wages .
The power given given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and the Affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and Hot exhaustive .
It further observed that:
The provisions of MRTU & PULP Act and the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts provided therem were not at all under consideration in the case ofUmadevi .
23.However, for the prayer of reinstatement , once it is held that the termination of the secoond party is illegal , and as it has come on record that the post on which the second party workman was appointed is the permanent post and was vacant due to the removal of Mr. Vadale and as the another employee Mr. Lalge has been appointed without observing the recruitment procedure , the said post is deemed to be vacant and hence the second party is entitled for reinstatement .
It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ' that:-
24. For continuity in service The termination i.c. retrenchment of the second partydt . 14-12-2005 is found illegal . Hence he is entitled for the continuity of service . Hence the second party is entitled for reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service , but without back wages . Hence I answer this issue accordingly.
order. 25. After giving the findings , I pass the following
ORDER
( 1 ) The reference is partly allowed.
Umadevidoes not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order permanency ofthe workers who have been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exists . Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of MRTU and PULP Act , once unfair Labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.
(2) It is hereby declared that the termination of second party workmandt . 14-12-2005 is illegal .
(3) The said order of termination is hereby set aside.
Hence the observation in the case of Umadevi cannot be applied to the facts of present case and unfair labour practice has been found.
(4) The first party is directed to reinstate the second party to his original post with continuity in service.
(5) The second party workman is not entitled for any back wages .
19. As discussed earlier, it is inferred that the second party workman has been found retrenched illegally vothout compliance of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of second party is illegal hence I answer this issue in affirmative .
(6) The parties to bear their own costs .
Issue No. 3 :-
P.M. KHAMBAYATE, Presiding Officer
Satara
20 This asie is in respect of the prayers of Pembulty of service and back wages .
Di. 19 December , 2012 1489
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
। भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii )
नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी, 2013
का.आ. 4/1- अद्यागिक विवाद आंधनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ( 4 ) का धारा 17 के अनुसता में केन्द्रीय सरकार जरनल मैनेजर, गो. एस. एन. एल. नागौर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यागिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकार / श्रभ प्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15 1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/ 59/2009- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सूर्यात नकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th January, 2013
3.0. 471 -In pursuanceance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court . Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofthe General Manager , BSNL , Nagaur (Raj.) and Others and their workman, which was received by the Contra! Goverament on 15-1-2013.
No.140612/ 69 /2009 - IR (DU ) ] SUMATI SAKIANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sh . N.K. Purohit , Presiding Officer
I.D. 25/2009
Reference No. L -40012/69/2009 - IR ( DU ) dated 4-9-2009
Smu . Banarsı Devi
W/ o Shri Nemi Chand Rio Gorakh Chowk , Harijan Basti . Nava, Nagaur (Raj .)
V/s
1 The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Nagaur (Raj .)
2. The SDO( T) , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Kuchaman City, Nagaur ( Raj .)
Present:
Sh . Rajesh Khanna For the applicant
Sh. Sudeep Mathur For the non - applicant
AWARD
7-12-2012
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:--
"Whether the action of the management ofthe BSNL, Jaipur in terminating the services of Smt . Banarasi Devi w.e.f. 16-2-2009 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. Brief facts narrated in the statement of claim are thatthe applicant Smt . Banarsi Devi was employed by the non - applicant BSNL as part time Safai Karamchari in the year 1986. Initially she was being paid Rs . 10 p.m. , thereafter , amount was enhanced from time to time and in the end she was being paid Rs . 300 p.m. as salary. The applicant had worked continuously during period 1986 to 23-2-09 . When dispute regarding payment of lesser wages was raised by her, the non-applicant terminated her services on 24-2-09 without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice .
3. The applicant has pleaded that despite she had worked continuously for about 24 years and had worked for more than 240 days in a year, her services have been terminated illegally . Thus , the applicant has prayed that her termination be declared illegal and she should be reinstated along with back wages and interest thereon .
4. The non - applicant filed its reply to the claim , in which, it is denied that she was appointed as part time safai karamchari . It has been averred that the applicant did not work with SDOT, Nagaur and no appointment letter was ever issued to her. It has been denied that workman had worked at Kandla Tower of the non - applicant . It has been averred that there was no Tower at Kandla. The non- applicant has further averred that as and when required the work of cleaning was used to be taken from the applicant or any person doing such job through contract system and payment was being made through ACJ - 17 form . Since, the applicant was not employed by the non - applicant , her claim be rejected .
5. In evidence , the applicant filed her affidavit and documents Ex. W - 1 to W- 6 in support of her claim . In rebuttal , the non - applicant has filed the counter affidavit ofSh . D.R. Meena , SDO , BSNI. , Kuchamancity, Nagaur .
6. I have considered rival submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the relevant record.
7. In view of the pleadings of the parties , following questions crop - up for considerations : -
( i ) Whether the applicant had worked as part time safai karamchari during period 1986 to 23-2-09 and had worked more than 240 days during 1490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23. 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[ PART II - SEC . 3( ii) ]
preceding 12 months from the date of her termination 23-2-09 and whose services were terminated by the non - applicant in violation of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act ?
( ii ) What relief the applicant is entitled to?
Point No. I
11. Per contra. the learned representative for the non- applicant submits that the applicant in her statement has stated that she was employed as part time safai karamchari in the year 1986 whereas in her application Ex - W- 1 dated 27-6-98 . she had prayed for her appointment as part time safai karamchari for performing two hours job . Even , ifthe application of the applicant was forwarded with recommendation , merely on this ground it cannot be inferred that the applicant was given appointment as part time worker . The applicant has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove that she had worked for 240 days in a year . He also submits that the applicant has failed to establish that she had worked for at least 240 days in a year preceding 12 months from the date of termination, therefore , provisions of Section 25 - F are not attracted.
8. The applicant Smt . Banarasi Devi has stated in her affidavit that she was employed as part time safai karamchari in the year 1986 and she had worked as such till 23-2-09 . She has further stated that when she made complainant regarding payment of lesser wages , her services were illegally terminated on 24-2-09 without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice . In her cross- examination she has admitted that no appointment letter was issued to her. She has also admitted that the contents inher application Ex - W- 1 were correct .
12. I have given my thoughtfull consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties .
13. To attract the provision of Section 25 - F of I.D. Act one of the conditions required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would no be less than one year .
9. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri D.R. Meena, SDO , BSNL , has stated that the applicant was never employed as part time worker or safai karmchari and salary was never fixed by the non - applicant . The work of cleaning was being done through contract system and payment was used to be made through ACJ - 17 form after obtaining receipt . He had denied that the applicant had worked more than 240 days in any year .
14. The expression " continuous periods " occur in Section 25 - F has been defined in Section 25 - B of the I.D. Act. Under sub - section ( 1 ) ofthe Section 25 - B , if a workman has put in uninterrupted service of establishment including the service which may interrupted on account of sickness , outhorize leave , accident , a strike which is not illegal , a lock out or secession of work that is not due to any fault onthe part of the workman shall be said to be continuous service for one year i.e. 12 months in respect of number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service permissible under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 25 - B .
15. Sub-section 2 of Section 25 -B of the I.D. Act says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service for a period of one year as envisaged under sub- section ( 1 ) of 25 - B of 1.D. Act , he shallbe deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in preceding period of twelve months from the date of his termination . The said sub - section provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year.
16. In the background of the legal provisions set forth above , factual scenario in the present case is to be examined .
10. Learned representative for the applicant contends that the applicant has proved her case by submitting her affidavit and documents Ex - W- 1 to Ex - W-6 . Further in reply, there is no specific denial ofthe fact that the applicant had worked as part time employee . The non - applicant has not produced any documents to show that the applicant had not worked for 240 days . The documents were in power & possession of the management and the same have not been produced , therefore , adverse inference should be drawn against the non - applicant . He further contends that the management has pleaded that work of cleaning was done on the basis of contract system whereas the management witness has denied this fact . He also contends that application of the applicant Ex - W- I reveals that the applicant was working with the non - applicant & SDOT, Kuchamancity had recommended and forwarded her application Ex - w - 1 for appointment as part time worker to higher authorities . The statement of the applicant finds support from the said document . It is established from the evidence adduced by the applicant that she was working under the employment of the non - applicant during period 1986 to 24-2-09 and had worked for more than 240 days in a year . The learned reresentative also contends that part time worker is workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and before terminating his services , compliance ofthe mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F was essential. In support of his contentions the learned representative has relied on 2011 LAB I.C. 3843 , 2012 LAB I.C. (NOC) 10 (Raj .).
17. The initial burden was on the applicant to prove that she had remained under the employment of the 1491 [ भाग ।।-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
Point No. II
non-applicant as a workman for a continuous period of at least one year as envisaged u / s 25 - F of the I.D. Act therefore , his termination without notice or compensation in lieu of notice was in violation of the said section.
23. In view of the conclusion drawn in respect of point no. I that alleged action of the non - applicant was , not in violation of the provisions of Section 25 - F, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
24. In the result, it is held that the action of the non- applicant in terminating the services of the applicant was not illegal & unjustified . Resultantly. the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
25. Award as above .
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2013
18. The applicant in her statement of claim as well as in her affidavit submitted in evidence has stated that she was employed by the non - applicant as part time safai Karmchari in the year 1986 but in Ex - W- 1 application dated 27-6-98 which is an admitted document , her prayer was for employment as part time worker for two hours . Admittedly, no appointment letter was given to her. It is evident from the document Ex - W- 1 that prior to 27-6-98 , she was not working as part time safai karamchari . Merely on this ground that her application Ex - W - 1 was forwarded with recommendation for necessary action by the SDOT, Kuchamancity, it cannot be inferred that the applicant was given employment as part time safai karamchari .
19. It has been pleaded by the applicant in para 14 of the claim statement that she had worked for 240 days in a year continuously for about 24 years . It is not the case of the applicant that she had worked uninterruptedly for continuous period of one year as envisaged under sub clause 1 of the Section 25- B of the I.D.Act .
का.आ. 472. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर , नेशनल टैक्सटाइल कारपोरेशन लि. कोयम्बटूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/64/2012- आईआर ( डी यू) । सुमतिसकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th January, 2013
20. Thus , the scope of the enquiry is to be confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination i.e. 24-2-09 to decide whether the applicant had completed240 days during said period . In this regard except the affidavit ofthe applicant in her favour, there is no other corroborating evidence . Failure to prove defense by non - applicant does notdischarge the burden of proof to establish that the applicanthad worked for at least 240 days during preceding 12months from the date of her termination .
S.O. 472 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, National Texitile Corporation Ltd. Coimbatore and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-1-2013 .
[No. L-42012/64 /2012 - IR ( DU) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th December, 2012
21. Thedocuments Ex - W-2 to W-6 produced by the applicant are not pertaining to actual working days of the applicant . Ex - W- 2 is copy of Advocate's notice for enhancing daily wages . Ex- W-3 & Ex- W- 6 are applications submitted before the RLC( C) , Jaipur for enhancing wages and reinstatement respectively. Ex- W-4 is notice given by the RLC ( C) , Jaipur and Ex - W- 5 is reply filed by the non- applicant before the RLC ( C ) , Jaipur. In reply Ex- W- 5 it has not been admitted that the applicant had worked as part time safai karmchari . The applicant has neither produced any document to establish that she had worked for at least 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date ofher termination nor any request to call for documents from the non-applicant was made by her. Under these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the non applicant for not producing documents regarding actual working days of the applicant .
Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 84/2012
(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between theManagement of NTC Mill and their Workmen) .
22. Thus , the applicant has failed to establish that she had worked at least 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of her termination , therefore , provisions of section 25- F are not attracted in her case. Accordingly, this point is decided against the applicant.
1492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23.2013 / PHALGUNA 4. 1934
Between
1stParty/ 1st Petitioner Union 1. The Asstt . General Secretary Desiya Panchalai Thozhilar Sangam (INTUC) 1848. Trichy Road , Ramanathapuram Coimbatore-45
1stParty/2nd Petitioner Union 2.The General Secretary Coimbatore District Mill Labour Union (CITU) 78.381 / 127 , Anupparpalayam Kattoor Coimbatore -9
1stParty/3rd Petitioner Union 3. The General Secretary Kovai Mandala Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (NDLF) 32, Perumal Kovil Veedhi Vilankurichi Coimbatore- 35
2ndParty/ Respondent The General Manager National Textile Corporation Ltd. 35 - B , Somasundaram Mills Road Coimbatore- 641009
Appearance :
Petitioners Default toAppear M/ s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. ,Advocates For the 1st to 4th Party/ Petitioner Union For the 2nd Party/ Management
AWARD
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L. -42012/64/2012- IR (DU ) dated 6-11-2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Managerment of National Textile Corporation , Coimbatore for not considering the demands of the Petitioner Unions viz Coimbatore District Mill Labour Union ( CITU ) , Kovai Mandala Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (NDLF) and Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam ( INTUC ) in respect of revision of wages and benefits is justifiable or not? If not, what relief the Petitioner Unions are entitled to?"
2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 84/2012 and issued notices to both sides . Respondent appeared through advocate and Petitioners, 3 in number constituting the First Partydid not appear in the dispute in spite of having been served with notice twice and by filing statement of claim complete with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with copies thereofto the Respondent . When the matter stood
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
posted from time to time for further steps and lately on 24-12-2012 for further proceeding also , petitioners were absent nor represented
3. In spite of service of notice for appearance the petitioners in the dispute did not turn up or let in any evidence in support of their case for answering the reference . Needless to say it is upon the petitioners to substantiate their case that not considering the demands ofthe Petitioner Unions in respect of revision of wages and benefits is justifiable or not and if not what relief the Petitioner Unions are entitled. When they wish the Court to be satisfied and made believe that it is so it is for them to discharge that burden which has not been done . The inevitable conclusion is that there has not been the denial , as alleged for want of proof.
4. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by hin corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 26th December , 2012)
A. N. JANARDANAN . Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
None
None Forthe 1st Party/ Petitioner For the 2nd Party/ 1 st Management
Documents Marked:
Onthe Petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date
Description
NA
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date
Description
NA
नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 473.-औद्योगिक विवाद निगम 1447 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में पोर्ट ट्रस्ट , पारादीप के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचार ( संदर्भ संख्या 110/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रोय सरकार को 24-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-380112/96- आईआर ( एम ) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 30th January, 2013
S.O. 473. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the 1493 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the M/s . Paradip Port Trust (Paradip ) and others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2013 .
Whether the claim of Paradip Port & Dock Mazdoor Union that the workers of Cargo Handling Co- operative Canteen to be treated as regular employees ofParadip Port Trust is justified ? If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?
[No. L-38011 /2/96 - IR (M) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer, C.G.I : T. - cum- Labour
Court , Bhubaneswar.
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 110/2001
Dateof Passing Award - 31st December, 2012
Between:
1. The Chairman , Paradip Port Trust, Paradip. Pin - 754 142 .
2. President , Cargo Handling Co - operative Canteen, At./Po . Paradip , Dist . Jagatsinghpur - 754 142 .
IstParty -Managements .
(And)
Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, Paradip Port & Dock. Mazdoor Union , At . ATBK Sub-station , Po. Paradip , Dist . Jagatsinghpur 754 142 .
2nd Party -Union .
Appearances:
Ms. Gautam Miswhra & S.K. Patra , Advocate
For the 1st Party Management No. 1
M/ s. Bijaya Sahu Advocate
For the 1st Party Management No. 2
For the 2nd Party Union
M/ s . B.C. Bastia , Advocate .
AWARD
This reference has been made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L - 38011/2/ 96/ 1R (M) , dated 14-8-1996 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
3. The 2nd Party- Union espousing the cause of the disputants has alleged in its statement of claim that the disputants as per Annexure- A of the Statement of claim are the workmen in the canteen which was constituted in the year 1983 under the resolution of the 1 st Party Management passed in Traffic Co- ordination meeting held on 4-7-1983 and it was decided that a canteen under the name and style of Cargo Handling Co - operative Canteen will be set up near the General Cargo berth within the prohibited dock area for providing food stuffs , tea etc. to the Dock workers and other employees working under the Ist Party Management. The said canteen was never registered under the Co - operative Societies Act and no bye - laws were framed. The Ist Party- Management provided furniture , utensils , free clectricity , rent free accommodation , water supply etc. for running the canteen besides providing facilities ofmaintenance , renovation , extension etc. through its Engineering Department . All the 22 workmen designated as coupon seller, cook , helper, canteen -boy etc. have been working without any break since the setting up of the canteen in 1983. They are being issued with entry permit under the signature of the Asst . Commandant , CISF with counter signature of the officials of the Ist Party Management and provided with free lodging at the accommodation earmarked for the said canteen . The officers of the 1st Party - Management in the Traffic Department as also the Labour Officer make frequent inspections of the canteen and any grievance from the users are speedily attended to by them . The medical officer ofthe 1 st Party - Management also makes routine visits to inspect the general sanitary measures being taken by the canteen and forward the report to the Traffic Manager. OneLabour Officer ofthe 1st Party- Management has been made in - charge of the said canteen . Shri N.C. Sahoo . Additional Traffic Manager ( formerly the Deputy Traffic Manager) looked after and ran the said canteen from 1983 to 1993. Thereafter Shri K.S.G. Krishnan , Additional Traffic Manager is looking after and running the said canteen. Likewise Shri S.K. Mishra , Deputy Traffic Manager ( 1 ) and thereafter Shri K.K. Sahu , Deputy Traffic Manager ( 1. ) functioned as Secretary of the canteen . From the very beginning the Management Committee of the said canteen was composed of 11 to 13 members out of which Additional Traffic Manager, Deputy Traffic Manager ( Operation ), Deputy Traffic Manager ( Labour ) and Labour Officer of the 1st Party -Management were normally to be the President , Treasurer, Secretary and Joint Secretary of the committee respectively. Other members of the committee used to be nominated from the Dock Foremen , winchmen . Tally Clarks . General Labour etc. The meetings of the 2. The reference relates to an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of Paradip Port Trust and their workmen with respect to the following matter.-
5376 /13-22 1494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
officers indulged in unfair labour practice in as much as they actively engaged themselves in suppressing and wiping out the evidence which might show and establish that the Ist party Management is running the said canteen for the welfare oftheir employees . Under the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare ) Regulations the Ist Party - Management is under statutory obligation to set up , maintain and run a canteen for the welfare of their dock workers . Thus the 1st Party- Management runs , manages and controls the said canteen and the disputants are its employees and they need to be regularized and treated to be regular employees of the Paradip Port Trust and they are required to be paid their wages and other benefits as perAll India Port and Dock Workers Wage Settlement and subjected to the same service conditions as are applicable to the regular employees of the Port with retrospective effect .
Management committee are held at the office of the Deputy Traffic Manager (Operation) , Central Documentation Centre and a copy of each meeting is invariably sent to the Chairman of the 1st Party -Management . The composition of the Managing Committee was changed by the 1st Party Management maliciously and with ulterior motive with effect from 7-12-1995 . Since the wages of the workmen of the said canteen are very low in comparison to their nature ofwork the disputant workmen kept on raising the demand for regularization of their services under the Ist Party- Management When their demand was not attended to, they raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Bhubaneswar vide their letters dated 6-6-1995 and 22-6-1995 . In the discussions and conciliation proceedings Shri K.S.G Krishnan , Additional Traffic Manager and the President of the said canteen took part on 24-11-1995 . The Chairman of the 1st Party- Management sent his comments to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) through a letter written by the Deputy Secretary ( P) dated 22-11-1995 stating inter - alia that there is no cargo handling co - operative canteen at Paradip Port . Some cargo handling workers and employees are preparing tea and snacks for their refreshment in the dock site and the 1st Party- Management is not aware of the engagement of workers by these employees for the said purpose . The subsequent discussions and conciliation proceedings were not attended to by anyone from the side of the 1st Party - Management No. 1 and 2 and the conciliation proceedings consequently ended in failure . Before start of the conciliation proceedings one Shri Pitambar Behera came to the canteen on 25-8-1995 and torn the attendance register of the workmen for last two years and threw it to the fire of chullah . This incident was brought to the notice of Shri K.S.G Krishnan , Additional Traffic Manager and President of the Canteen vide letter dated 26-8-1995 . Shri K.S.G Krishnan , Additional Traffic Manager of the Ist Party - Management and the President of the said canteen after attending discussion before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Bhubaneswar on 24-11-1995 called a meeting of the Managing Committee on 7-12-1995 and reconstituted the Managing committee making Shri R.S. Ram , Out-door Clerk as the President Shri Sarbeswar Biswal , Winchman as Secretary and Shri Pitambar Behera O.D.C as Treasurer of the committee. The post of Joint Secretary was abolished . The minutes of the meeting was signed by Shri K.K. Sahu , Deputy Traffic Manager ( Labour ) and issued to the members . Copy was not sent to the Chairman . A letter was sent on 18.12.1995 signed by Shri K.S.G Krishnan , Additional Traffic Manager as Ex - President to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar i.e. one day before the date of conciliation informing him that a new Managing Committee has been formed and future communication may be made with the new President/ Secretary. Infact no election of the management committee was held on 7-12-1995 or on any other date . In this way the Ist Party- Management and its
4. It has been stated by the 1st Party-Management No. 1 in its written statement that as per its information the Cargo Handling Co - operative Canteen was formed by some ofthe Cargo Handling Workers and Officers working inside prohibited area on co - operative basis . A fee of Re . 0.50 was charged as given membership fee and each member was issued with a share of Rs . 10. The committee nominated different employees / workers as its office bearers for smooth functioning of the canteen . The day to day decision was being taken by the executive committee of the canteen . The members of the executive committee are selected/ elected from time to time from amongst the members /share holders of the canteen . On the request of the canteen committee the Port Trust Management has provided a building with free electricity and water as a good gesture to the employees from the funds available in the welfare fund of Cargo Handling Workers and Casual Labourers . The staff engaged in the canteen was not recruited by the PortTrust and as such there is no employee and employer relationship between them . Though a resolution was passed by the Traffic Co - ordination meeting held on 4-7- 1983 , but the said resolution was not implemented by the Port Trust Management , nor any administrative circular was issued to that effect. The canteen staff was engaged by the executive committee of the canteen and wages etc. are paid to them by the executive committee of the said canteenfrom the resources with it . Thus workers were not paidby the Port Trust at any point of time. The said canteen not only serves to its members but also to outside agencies such as employees of TTSCO , FCT, truckers and other Port users working inside the prohibited area. Since the officers of the Traffic Department , Labour Officer and other officers are share holders / members of the Cargo Handling Co- operative Canteen/Executive Committee, they visit the canteen premises and advise them on the better functioning ofthe canteen . In order to avoid conflicts between various unions functioning in the Port Trust and discourage their intra union rivalry, the share holders of the canteen 1495
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
unanimously nominated Port officers who are the share holders for smooth functioning of the canteen . This has nothing to do with the Port Management . The Port Management is not aware of the wage structure and benefits extended to the workers of the said canteen . Because of the involvement of the share holders/officers inday to day affairs of the Management of Cargo Handling canteen a false impression has been created that the canteen is run by the Port Management . To avoid such impression the members of the Executive Committee unanimously decided not to include any officer ofthe Port Trust in the Executive Committee and fresh committee was constituted. The sale proceeds of the canteen are not deposited in any of the account of the Paradip Port Trust . Rather they have a separate account in the name of the Cargo Handling Co - operative Canteen managed by the Executive Committee members .
5. The 1st Party - Management No. 2 has filed separate written statement and alleged that the dispute is not maintainable against the Paradip Port Trust since there is no employer and employee relationship between the Port Trust and the employees of Cargo Handling Co- operative Canteen . The said canteen had hired canteen- boys , cooks , and other staff on its own and their wages are paid by the canteen itself. The Port officers were involved in the matters of canteen to ensure its formation with financial and moral support from the Port Trust as a gesture of goodwill . The Port had agreed to provide basic infrastructure facilities on the request of the Canteen Committee . The canteen maintains share /membership register, dividend register and minutes book of the executive bodywhich is held from time to time . The canteen which is situated inside the port prohibited area caters to the need of the employees and workers of the Port Trust , exporters and importers , truck drivers , visitors and workers ofthe construction companies . All port employees are not the members of the canteen . Therefore it will be grossly improper to presume that the canteen is the part of the Port and the same is controlled by the Port either directly or indirectly. Infact the canteen is independent of the Port . Neither the sale proceeds are deposited in the Port Trust nor the surplus money is shared by the Port Trust . The canteen is managed by the Managing Committee and that is responsible for the functioning of the canteen . On the date of reference there were 18 employees on the rolls of the co-operative canteen , not 22 as mentioned by the 2nd Party-Union . The canteen does not have a wage structure . As such its workers are paid monthly consolidates wages . They are also provided with free food and lodging inside the canteen premises . The new Managing committee constituted on 7-12-1995 is looking after the day-to-day management of the canteen . The 2nd Party - Union cannot raise any objection to the nature and composition of the Managing Committee . If any surplus funds are generated, dividends are distributed amongst its members . Had it been operated by the Port the members would not have been given the dividends .
6.The 2nd Party -Union in its rejoinder has reiterated its allegations made in the statement of claim . The Union has further brought the fact to the notice of this Tribunal that port officials, namely, Shri N.C. Sahu, K.S.G Krishnan , S.K.Mishra, K.K. Sahu , Labour Officers and other port officials ofthe Management Committee were not the share holders ofthe canteen as alleged. The Port administration is fully aware of the poor wage structure and meagre benefits enjoyed by the workmen of the canteen . There is practically no registered co- operative society to run the dock canteen . The employees of the canteen get their wages from the Traffic Department of the Port and they are responsible to the Traffic Department . In such eventualities it cannot be said that the canteen is independent and run by the alleged co-opcrative society.
7. In view ofthe pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the claim of Paradip Port and Dock Mazdoor Union that the workers of Cargo Handling Co- operative Canteen to be treated as regular employees of Paradip Port Trust is justified?
2. If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?
3. Whether there is relationship of master and servant between co -operative society and management of Cargo Handling Co - operative Canteen ?
8. The 2nd Party - Union has examined two witness in support of its claim . W. W. -I is Nilamani Behera and W. W.- 2 is Akshya Kumar Pattnaik. The Union has also relied upon seventeen documents marked as Ext . - 1 to 17. On the other hand the 1st Party Management No. I has examined Sri Saroja Kumar Mishra as M. W. - I and Suvendra Kumar Sahoo as M. W. - 2 and relied upon five documents marked as Ext- A, B , B /I , B/2 and C.
9. The 1st Party-Management No.2 has examined Shri Pitamber Behera as M.W. - 1 and relied upon several documents marked as Ext . - AA to Ext.-NN.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
10. In order to claim regularizatio, under the Paradip Port Trust the 2nd Party- Union has to prove the employment ofthe disputant workmen by the Paradip Port Trust . Therefore the burden lies heavily upon the 2nd Party-Union to prove this fact to succeed in their claim. There is no dispute that the canteen under the name of Cargo Handling Co - operative Canteen was opened in the 1496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23.2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II - SEC . 3 (i ) )
year 1983 within the prohibited Dock Area by a resolution Kumar Pattnaik has only proved Ext . - 10 to 17 and has stated
passed in Traffic Co- ordination meeting held on 4-7-1983. nothing significant/ relevant to the present dispute .
ixt. - 1. filed on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union is the extract
of minutes of the Traffic Co - ordination meeting held on 12. On the contrary Shri Saroja Kumar Mishra
1083 which was circulated vide letter No. AD/DCM Witness No.1 of the 1st Party- Management No. I hus
180, dated 11-7-1983 . In this meeting three resolutions stated in his evidence that he had first worked as Addi .
with regard to the establishment of Labour canteen were Traffic Manager and then Traffic Manager in the Traffic
passed, first is that electricity, water and building will be Department of the Paradip Port Trust . Rightfrom the
prosided for the labour canteen by the Port Trust , second beginning the canteen was being operated on co - operative
Es that tire canteen is to run on the lines of co - operative basis . Neither the authority of the Port nor the Traffic
and the third is that the Managing Committee of the Manager exercised their administrative control regarding
canteen shouldbe headed by one of the Deputy Traffic running of the canteen , appointment of staff and day to
Managers or Traffic Officer ( L) , the other members may day affairs of the canteen . The Cargo Handling
consist of employees working in the Dock area including Co- operative Canteen has been registered under the
Cargo Handling workers . Ext. - 2 is relates to the issue of Co- operative Societies Act . There was no approval of the
commodity pass in favour of the Dock Canteen by Port authority for functioning of the co - operative society
Comanandant, CISF with the signature of the Additional from the year 1983 to 1995. He was only a member of the
Traffic Manager. Ext. - 3 to 5 are the office orders issued co - operative canteen . There is a committee to look - after
with regard to free supply of electricity. water and providing the management of the canteen . For some period the Traffic
accommodation and construction of rest room by the Manager was the President of the committee . He has denied
officers of the Port Trust . Like- wise Ext. - 10 to 16 are the fact that the canteen in question functions under the
photocopies of certain letters and minutes of Canteen direct control and supervision of the Traffic Department
committee meetings pertaining to various matters related ofthe Paradip Port Trust . He has proved the extract of the
to the management and running of the canteen . These Bank account of the canteen marked as Ext-A and also
letters /minutes were issued under the signature of the annual account and audit report of the Paradip Port Trust
officers ofthe Port Trust, but they are of little help to prove Ext. - B , B / 1 and B/2 . He has also proved the copy of the
the case of the 2nd Party -Union that the said canteen was certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar , Co - operative
managed by the Paradip Port Trust or its officers under the Societies , Jagatsinghpur regarding registration ofthe Cargo
control and supervision of the Paradip Port Trust . The Handling Cooperative Canteen markedas Ext . -C. This
attendance register Ext. - 17 is in prescribed form printed registration certificate was issued on 1-3-2001 . Witness
with the name of Paradip Port Trust and had been No. 2 of the 1st Party - Management No. 1 Shri Suvendra
maintained from February, 1986 to June , 1988 , but this does Kumar Sahoo was the Deputy Financial Advisor . He has
not make in itself the employees of the canteen , the deposed that the sale proceeds of the said canteen is not
employees of the Paradip Port Trust. deposited in the Cash Section of the Paradip Port Trust
11. Besides the documentary evidence filed by the office . The canteen is not functioning under the
2nd Party- Union the oral evidence of its witnesses W. W.- administrative control of the Paradip Port Trust and its
1. Sri Nilamani Behera and W.W. - 2 Sri Akshya Kumar income and expenditure are not reflected in the annual
Pattnaik also does not prove that the dock canteen was account of Paradip Port Trust .
run and managed by the Paradip Port Trust ever since its
inception . W.W. - 1 Sri Nilamani Behera has been working 13. The Ist party- Management No.2 has examined
in the canteen, as per his deposition , since 15th August , Shri Pitamber Behera as its witness No.1 , who had been
1993. He has stated that he was engaged by the Traffic working as Secretary of the canteen since 2001. Ile has
Manager in the said canteen along with 18 other persons stated in his evidence that prior to registration of the
presently working in the canteen . The applications were Society a committee was formed and through it , members
invited through a notice pasted on the notice board of the were selected. The canteen committee recruits the paid
office of the Traffic Manager. No written appointment letter employees of the canteen , who are being paid their salary
was issued to them by the Management . He has stated from out of the earnings of the canteen. The Attendance
thatall the employees had faced interview, but no intimation register and Payment register of these paid employees are
to attend the interview was received by them from the also being maintained by the Committee . These employees
Management . His name was not registered in the arebeing granted leave by the Secretary of the Society . He
Employment Exchange . He has further stated that " Paradip hasalso proved the Attendance register, Payment register.
Port Trust has not accepted us as their employees " . All Gift register, temporary gate pass , membership form of
the employees received their salary from Shri Pitambar share holder minutes of meeting etc. pertaining to the
Behera after signing in the payment register and used to canteen . He has also proved the Savings Bank account
submit leave application to the Traffic Manager through pass book No. 106 , Ext . - JJ and Cash Book of the canteen
the canteen in- charge Shri Behera. W. W. -2, Shri Akshya from 5-8-1983 to 2-3-1986, Ext.-KK. All these documents
1497 भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
or its officers under its authority long continuance in service cannot entitle them to be absorbed or regularized in service of the Paradip Port Trust .
go to show that the canteen is functioning independently under the supervision and control of the Managing Ranites with its own financial resources . He has denied the fact that the workmen of the canteen are the employees at the Paradip Port Trust . He has also proved the Minutes of the mecting dated 1-8-1983 marked as Ext. - LL, Minutes ofthe committee regarding appointment of various staff of the canteen marked as Ext . -MM and bye - laws of the Co- operative Canteen marked as Ext.-NN. These documents show that the staff of the canteen was selected by the Canteen Committee and not by the authority ofthe Paradip Port Trust.
17. In the case of " Haldia Refinary Canteen Employees Union and others -Versus -Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others " [ ( 2005 ) 5 SCC 51 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court in almost similar set up of facts has held that " workmen working in the canteen become the workers of the establishment for the purposes of the Factories Act only and not for any other purpose . Theydo not become the employees of the management for any other purpose entitling them to absorption into the service ofthe principal employer: '
14. Taking all this evidences led by the parties , into account it cannot reasonably be concluded that the said vanteon is the part of the Paradin Port Trust or running under the control and supervision of the Paradip Port Trust . The canteen was established as a welfare measure only for providing food stuffs , tea etc. to the Dock workers and other workers engaged in the Port and in other related activities . The canteen was managed on co - operative basis . Earlier it was run and managed by Co - operative Canteen Committee and thereafterby Managing Committee constituted of share holders / Dock workers .
18. In the above noted case the canteen was managed by the contractor and the Management was exercising effective control over the contractor of the canteen on certain matters in regard to running of the canteen, including selection of workmen of the canteen. such control was being exercised only to ensure that the canteen was run in an efficient manner and to provide wholesome and healthy food to workmen of the establishment and not for any other purpose. This does not mean that the employees working in the canteen have become the employees of the Management . The Management has nothing to do with either the appointment or taking disciplinary action or dismissal or removal from service of the workmen working in the canteen .
rulings . The 2nd Party-Union has relied upon following
(i) "Parimal Chandra Raha & Others-versus -Life Insurance Corporation of India & others " ( 1995 LLJ SC 339) .
(ii) "M.M.R. Khan etc. -Versus Union of India and others etc." [ 1995LLJ ( III ) C 166 ] .
(iii) " Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited and another - Versus- Shramik Sena & others " (AIR 1999 SC 2577 ).
(iv) "Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited & M Venkataiah &Others" [2003 LLJ-( III ) SC - 847] .
15. The Ist Party- Management has relied upon the two Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case ( 1 ) " Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus- Uma Devi and others " ( 2006 ) 4 SCC 1 and ( 2 ) "Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union and others - Versus- Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others " (2005 5 SCC 51 ) . In the first case constitutionality of recruitment of temporary, contractual , casual , daily wage or adhoc employees and their right of absorption , regularization or permanent continuance has been an issue and therefore this case is of little use in the present context . However the Hou'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because an employce had continued under cover - of an order of the court , under " litigious employment " or had been continued beyond the term of his appointment by the State or its instrumentalitics , he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in service , merely on the strength of such continuance , if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules .
(v) "Paradip Port Trust-Versus- General Secretary, Utkal Port & Dock Workers ' Union Paradip Port and others" [2008-( 1 )-LLJ -452 (Orissa) ] .
(vi ) " Indian Over- seas Bank -Versus- IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union and Another " [2001- (1)-LLJ -SC-1618 ].
19. In the first case , the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that the canteen has become a part of the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporation . The Canteen Committees , the Cooperative Society of the employees and the contractors engaged from time to time are, in reality, the agencies ofthe Corporation and are , only 16. Here it is relevant to mention that the Paradip Port Trust is a government organization and it has its own rules of recruitment . If it is assumed that the staff of the canteen was recruited by the Paradip Port Trust or its officers under its authority then the recruitment rules should have been followed and the disputants should have requisite qualifications regarding age , educational qualification , proficiency or experience in job , physical suitability etc. which conditions have not been fulfilled in the present case . But on the reverse, if it is assumed that the disputants are not recruited by the Paradip Port Trust 1498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[ PART II -SEC. 3 (ii )]
a veil between the Corporation and the canteen workers in fact are the employees of the Corporation .
order to facilitate the running of such canteen providing infrastructural facilities such as premises , furniture , utensils, electricity, cost of gas and cylinder and even subsidy to the staff of the canteen and periodical funds by the Centual Office to carry on day to day affairs of the Canteen. In view of the above facis the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the single judge and upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal upholding the employees of the canteen as workmen of the Bank for giving the same status and same facilities as are available to the class - IV employees of the Bank .
20. In the second case , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while distinguishing between three types of canteens Statutory Canteens Non-Statutory, but recognized canteens - Non- statutory non - recognized canteens has held thatworkers engaged in the Statutory Canteens as well as those engaged in Non- statutory recognized canteens in the railway establishments are railway employees and they are entitled to be treated as such . But here in the matter in dispute it is not clear as to what type of canteen is the canteen running in the establishment of the Paradip Port Trust known as Cargo Handling Co- operative canteen and whether the notification issued by the Government of india dated 11-12-1989 referred to in the above judgement is applicable in the present case or not ? The 2nd Party- Union has not relied on this notification nor filed its copy to make it clear as to whether this notification applies to all Ministries and departments of the Government of India or to some particular establishments or departments .
21. in the third case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has treated the workmen of the canteen of the establishment of Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Limited as permanent employees of the Management as the canteen though being managed by the contractor has been in existence from inception of the establishment and the workmen continued to work in spite of there being change in contractor pursuant to direction issued by the Industrial Court and the 1st Management failed to challenge the directions of Industrial Tribunal which became final and the wages of the workmen were reimbursed by the Corporation . The control and supervision of the canteen was exercised by the Corporation through its authorized officers and the contractor being only an agent or manager of the corporation working under its supervision, control and direction.
25.All these cases cited on behalf of the 2nd Party- Union are distinguishable on facts from the present case and on the basis of the facts of the present case the disputant workmen cannot be held to be the regular employees of the Ist Party- Management as there is no evidence that they were recruited either by the Paradip Port Trust or their officers acting under its authority and they were getting any financial aid or subsidy or wages fromthe Paradip Port Trust . No direct supervision or control is being exercised by the authorities of the Paradip Port Trust. Inspections by Labour Officer or Medical Officer of the Port Frost are only made to safeguard the sanitary and hygienic conditions in the canteen and the statutory requirements with regard to an industrial establishment metwith. It has come in evidence that the canteen workers are being paid with the earnings of the canteen. A separate account in the name of the canteen is being operated by the officials of the canteen . Therefore the Paradip Port Trust has nothing to do with the affairs of the said canteen and the disputant workmen cannot be treated as regular employees of the Paradip Port Trust . Under these circumstances the claim of the Paradip Port and Dock Mazdoor Union for treating the workmen of the said canteen as regular employees of Paradip Port Trust is not justified. Issue No.1 is decided against the 2nd Party- Union .
ISSUE NO . 2
22. In the 4th case , the employees engaged through contractor in canteens of principal employer which were maintained in discharge of employer's statutory obligation are held to be employees of the principal /employer bythe Lion'ble SupremeCourt.
26 From the evidence on record and conclusions arrived at a ove it can safely be concluded that the disputant workmen are the employees of the Cargo Handling Cooperative Canteen which is being run by a dulyregistered co- operative Society. Therefore relationship of master and servant is established between the Co- operative Society and the staff of Cargo Handling Cooperative Canteen. This issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO . 3
27. Inview ofthe findings recorded under Issue No. 1 and 2 the 2nd Party- Union is not entitled to relief claimed.
23 in the 5th case, because of perennial nature of work for long period of time regularization of service of workmen was held not erroneous by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But this case does not relate to canteen workers instead to workers engaged for loading and unloading materials of the suppliers and transporters . There are other distinguishing facts in the above case which are different from the present case.
28.Reference is answered accordingly.
J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer 24. In the sixth case , the Management of Indian Overseas Bank was running canteens in Head Office to cater to needs of staff employees of the Bank through contractor. Later the Bank floated Co-operative Society in 1499
भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4. 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2013
(2) Whether the workmen whose names are enlisted atExhibitA should be declared as permanent workers and wages and consequential benefits to be paid concerned workers ?
2. An application was filed on 21-11-2012 by 50 workmen named therein with a prayer that their names be deleted from the reference as they were not interested in pursuing the claim against the first party.
का.आ. 474. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर. सी. एण्ड एफ. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1. मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 38/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/5 /2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th January, 2013
3.Another application has been filed today by the President , Mumbai Shramik Sangh stating therein that the second party is not interested in pursuing its claim and contentions against the first party and that it does not press its statement of claim and, therefore , an appropriate award be passed in this mattter.
4. It is thus clear from the above two applications that the second party is not interested in pursuing and prosecuting this reference.
5. The reference is , therefore, disposed of as not prosecuted by the second party.
Award is passed accordingly.
S.O. 474. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of R.C. & F.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013 .
JUSTICE G S. SARRAF. Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2013
[No. L-42012/5 /2005 - IR ( C -II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , MUMBAI
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
Present:
REFERENC No. CGIT 1/38 of 2006
का.आ. 475. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार खादी विलेज इण्डस्ट्रीस कमीशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 11/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers
[सं. एल -42012/70/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th January, 2013
And Their workmen
Appearances:
:
Mr. Alva , Adv.
For the Management
Mr. R. D. Bhatt, Adv .
For the Union
Mr. J.P. Sawant , Adv .
For the 50 workmen
Maharashtra
:
State
Mumbai , dated the 8th day of January, 2013 .
S.O. 475. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 11/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Khadi Village Industries Commission , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013.
AWARD
[No. L-42012/70/2005 - IR (CM- II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer ANNEXURE
1. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , MUMBAI
Present :
JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer REFERENC No. CGIT 1/11 of 2006
(1) Whether the contract between the contractor and Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Mumbai is sham and bogus and is a camouflage to deprive the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit "A" from the benefits available to permanent workers ofthe Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Limited ?
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Khadi Village Industries Commission 1500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
And
8. Final arguments heard .
Theirworkmen(Ganesh Kotian)
Appeararices:
For the Management : Mr. S. K. Jaiswal , Management Representative
9. As per the statement of claim the workman was appointed on daily wage basis and as such he had no legal right to continue in service . The workman has not led any evidence whatsoever and there is nothing on the record to show that the termination of the workman was illegal or unjustified
For the Workman :
Mr. J. P. Sawant , Adv. Withdrew his power
State : Maharashtra
10. It is thus clear that the action of the management interminatingthe services of the workman Ganesh Kotian islegal andjustified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Mumbai , dated the 11th day of January, 2013.
AWARD
Award is passed accordingly. JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली. 30 जनवरी , 2013
1. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
Whether the action of the management of Khadi & Village Industries Commission in terminating the services of Sh.Ganesh Kotian , Wash Boy is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
का.आ. 476. औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 1.7 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 194/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/334/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th January, 2013 According to the statement of claim filed by the workman Ganesh he was employed by the management of Khadi and Village Industries Commission in its departmental canteen in the capacity of wash boy w.e.f. 1-6-1996 . He was attending to the duties attached to the post of wash boy along with other regular employees . He was paid wages @ Rs.50 per working day. He was given assurance from time to time that his case for permanency was under consideration . However , the management terminated his services w.e.f. 1-6-2004 in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. The action of the management in terminating his services is illegal and unjustified. He has , therefore , prayed that he be reinstated with full back wages and consequential benefits .
S.O. 476. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 194/ 2011 ) of the Central Gevemment Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , received bythe Central Government on 30-1-2013.
[No. L-22012/ 334/2002- IR (CM - II) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Section Officer ANNEXURE
3.The management has filed written statement wherein it has stated that the workman was engaged purely on daily wage basis and he was not in continuous service . The workman had no legal right to continue in service and , therefore , his services were discontinued.
4. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein he has reiterated his stand .
BEFORE DRR. K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , DELHI I. D. No. 194/2011
5. The workman did not produce any evidence and hisevidence was closed as per order sheet dt . 7-8-2012 . The Senior Vice President,
6. Shri J. P. Sawant, learned counsel for the workman has filed an application today to allow him to withdraw his appearance . The prayer is granted.
Bhartiya General Mazdoor Congress , PlotNo. 1 , Aram Bagh (NearUdasin Mandir) , PaharGanj , NewDelhi .
Workman The workman is not present and , therefore, cross- examination of the witness of the management is closed.
1501
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Versus
The Regional Manager ,
Food Corporation of India ,
Barakhamba Lane , New Delhi - 110001 .
....Management
AWARD
engaged by the Corporation as security guards through a contractor. The contractor, to whom work of providing security services was awarded by the Corporation, acted as an agent of the Corporation . Claimants have been working with the Corporation from last many years . Their selection was done by the Corporation and not by the Contractor . Contract agreement entered into between the Corporation and the contractor is ruse/camouflage . In case veil would be lifted, it would come over the record that there existed direct relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the claimants . Their service conditions were decided by the Corporation . Officers of the Corporation used to decide quantum of their wages and other dues . Their attendance was marked and verified by officers of the Corporation . Disciplinary action, like suspension etc , was taken by the Corporation . Transfers and place of posting of the claimants were always decided by the Corporation . They always represented to the Corporation for redressal of their grievances . As and when minimum wages were increased by the appropriate Government, the Corporation used to increase their wages . Though contractors changed , but they continued to work with the Corporation . Earlier M/ s Urmisha Succour Consultancy and Associates were awarded job of providing security guards , which was subsequently awarded to the contractor.
1. Contract labours , engaged by M/ s . Great Ex- servicemen Security and Transport Services (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the contractor ) to carry out contractual obligation with Food Corporation of India ( in short the Corporation), raised a demand on Corporation for absorption of their services . The Corporation did not concede to their demand. Writ petition being CWP No.7228 / 99 was filed by them before the High Court of Delhi for regularisation of their services with the Corporation . Writ petition was dismissed by the High Court , vide its order dated 27-9-2001 . Thereafter the contract labours approached the General Mazdoor Congress, ( hereinafter referred to as the union ) for redressal of their grievance . The union raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer seeking regularization of services of the contract labours withthe Corporation. Since the Corporation contested the claim , hence conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. Onconsideration of the failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, appropriate Government referredthe dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 22012/334 /2002 - IR( CM - II ) , New Delhi dated 26-9-2003 with followingterms:
"Whether the demand of the contract labours engaged by M/s . Great Ex - servicemen Security and Transport Services (P) Ltd. , the contractor, in relation to the absorption/regularisation of their services in the Food Corporation of India, New Delhi , is legal and justified? If yes , to what relief these workmen are entitled to and from which date ?"
3. They plead that the contractor ( s ) were not having licence to carry out work of providing security services to the Corporation. Contractor and the Corporation never acted on principle to principle basis and the contractor always acted on commands of the Corporation . Economic control on the claimants was exercised by the Corporation. Provisions such as allowance for their uniform , wages, leaves , assigning of duties and continuation in service etc. , were decided by the Corporation and not by the contractor. The contractor was a mere name lender. The claimants project that it is the Corporation who is their real employer with whom they were working since last so many years . They claim that their services may be regularised in the establishment of the Corporation with consequential benefits , besides direction to the Corporation to pay equal wages to them, at par with its regular employees .
4. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading thatthere existed no relationship ofemployer and employec between claimants and the Corporation . Claimants are employees of the contractor. Contract entered into between the Corporation and the contractor is a scrupulous document . Provisions of Contract Labour ( Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 ( in short the Contract Labour Act) werefollowedby the contractor as well as the Corporation . The contractor used to pay their wages . Service conditions ofthe claimants were governed by the contractor. Claimants were working under control and supervision of the contractor. Their services were dployed at different points bythe security supervisor of the contractor. As and when 2. Claim statement was filed by and on behalf of 21 contract labours , namely, Shri Rakesh Awasthi S/o Shri Ram Lal , Shri Siya Ram S /o Shri Patha Prasad, Shri Rakesh Kumar S/ o Shri Mahavir Singh , Shri Ashok Kumar S/ o Shri Sampat Singh , Shri Sonu Singh S/o Shri Rattan Singh, Shri 1.akhan Dhyani S/o Shri R Dhyani , Shri Hawa Singh S / o Shri Gulab Singh , Shri Ram Kishan S/o Shri Ram Sarup, Shri Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Hoshyar Singh , Shri Kuber Singh Bist S / o Shri Dalip Singh Bisht , Shri Dalbir Singh S/ o Shri Ratan Singh, Shri Sunder Singh S/ o Shri Azad Singh, Shri Manohar Lal S/ o Shri Hukum Lal , Shri Asha Ram S /o Shri Meharman , Shri Ram Kishan S /o Shri Shardanand, Shri Pradeep Kumar S/ o Shri Ramesh Singh , Shri Satnarayan Chaudhri S / o Shri S.L. Chaudhari , Shri Prem Singh Bisht S / o Shri Ganga Singh Bisht, Shri Mahavir Singh Dahiya S/ o Shri Jaisi Ram Dahiya, Shri Ajay Kumar Chikara S/ o Shri Satya Narayan and Shri Kundan Singh .. S/o Shri Keshava Nand, pleading therein that they were
フル マーク 2 1502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[ PART HSFC. 3 ( ii ) |
pumum wages were notified by the appropriate Cours , the contractor used to increase their weges . Mendance was maintained by the contractor . Points of their duties changed as per requirement . There was a supervisor engaged by the contractor, who used to supervise duties of the claimants . However, surprise checks used to be conducted by the security officers of the Corporation , to see that no duty point remain sinatended.
11. Shri Rakesh Bhandula deposed that the claimants were employees of the contractor. Contractor used to pay their wages . He used to make payment towards subscriptions of provident fund and ESI in respect of the claimants . Ex.MW1/ 2 . Ex.MW14 and Ex.MW15 are copies of bill presentedby the contractor. Ex.MW1 3 is copy of payment voucher and Ex.MW 1 7 is copy of salary register . maintained by the contractor. Ex MWI 8 is copy of provident fund and ESI register maintained by the contractor Ex.MW1/9 and Ex.MWI 10 are copies of challans for deposit of subscriptions towards provident fund and ESI .
5. The Corporation claims that when contract of M/ s. Urmisha Succour. , Consultancy and Associates came to an end, work was awarded to the contractor. It was prerogative of the contractor to remove old workers or to allow them to continue with the job , if they fulfil his requirement . Contactor was having his independent establishment and used to take independent decision in respect of contract labour employed by him . It does not lie in the mouth of the claimants to agitate that they worked directly under control and supervision of the Corporation. The Corporation claims that the contract entered into between it and the contractor is genuine. Claim put forward by the contract labours is devoid of merits , hence it may be dismissed, pleads the Corporation .
6 In rejoinder, claimants reiterate facts pleaded in the claim statement .
7. The case was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.11 , New Delhi , vide order No.Z- 22019/ 6/2007 - IR( C - II ), New Delhi dated 11-2-2008 for adjudication bythe appropriate Government . It was retransferred tothis Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.Z - 22019 / 6/2007- IR(CM - II ) , New Delhi dated 30-3-2011 .
12. When Ex.MW 1/4 is perused, it came to light that the contractor has claimed payment towards security supervisors and security guards deployed by him with the Corporation . Ex.MW1 /3 contains order passed by the Corporation for payment in respect of the above bills . Ex.MW 1/6 to Ex.MW 1/11 are the documents which go to establish that it was the contractor who made payment to the claimants and deposited their provident fund and ESI contributions with the authorities . As unfolded by Shri Bhandulla, it was the contractor who had engaged the claimants in his services . The contractor made payment towards wages of the claimants . No evidence has been put forth on behalf of the claimants that the Corporation ever made payment of wages to them . Facts unfolded by Shri Bhandulla coupled with the contents of the documents referred above , bring it over the record that relationship of employer and employce existed between the claimants and the contractor . Contractor made payment of wages to the claimants in accordance with minimum wages notified by the appropriate Government from time to time . Relationship of employer and employee never existed between the claimants and the Corporation.
8. After transfer of the case to this Tribunal , Shri S.L. Kathpal , authorised representative of the claimants , appeared only once on 19-7-2011 . Thereafter neither the claimants nor their authorized represented opted to put in their appearance. The case was adjourned for 23-8-11 , 19-9-11,27-10-11 , 14-12-11 , 16-1-12 and 14-2-12, on which dates, none appeared on behalf of the claimants . In view ofthese facts , the Tribunal was constrained to proceed withmatter under rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules1957 .
13. Whether the claimants , who were employees of the Contractor , can maintain a dispute against the Corporation ? For an answer to this proposition , the Tribunal has to take note of the law contained in Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act which makes provision for prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of convenience provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act are reproduced thus :
"10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour: - 9. Corporation examined Shri Rakesh Bhandula to defend the claim . Since none came forward on behalf of the claimants, hence opportunity could not be accorded to them to purify facts unfolded by Shri Bhandula by an ordeal of cross examination .
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with theCentral Board or , as the case may be , a State Board, prohibit , by notification in the Official Gazette , employment of contract labour in any process , operation or other work in any establishment .
10. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Deepak Dhawan , authorized representative , advanced arguments onbehalf ofthe Corporation . None came forward to present facts on behalf of the claimants. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows.-
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub - section (1 ) in relation to an establishment , the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors , such as - 1503
भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
have held that the contract labour would indeed be employees of the principal employer " .
(a) whether the process , operation or other work is incidental to , or necessary for the industry, trade, business , manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;
(b) whether it is of perennial nature , that is to say, it isof sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry , trade , business , manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment ;
(c ) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similarthereto;
(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number ofwhole -time workmen .
Explanation If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature , the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final . "
14. As emerge out of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act , the appropriate Government may,by notification in the official gazette , prohibit employment of contract labour in any process . operation or other work in any establishment . When employment of contract labour is prohibited , by issuanice of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate Government , what would be the status of the contract labour employed in the establishment ? Such a question arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) . The Apex Court ruled therein that there cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour by principal employer on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government on abolition of contract labour system , under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act . It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid by the Apex Court , which is extracted thus:
15. The Court ruled that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act. whether expressly or by necessary implication , provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of a notification by the appropriate Government under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 , prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process , operation or other work in any establishment . Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. It was further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [ 1974 (3 ) SCC 66 ) , the workman engaged for working in the canteen run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the employees ofthe appellant mills . In Basti Sugar Mills ( AIR 1964 S.C. 355 ) a canteen was run in the factory by the Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in the canteen were held to be employees of the establishment . The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class ( 3 ) mentioned above . Judgment in Hussainbhai [1978 Lab . 1.C. 1264 ] was considered by theAges Court m the said precedent and it was ruled them that the said precedent falls in class (2) , referred above The Apex. Court concluded that on issuance of prohibitive avocation under Section 10 of the Contract Labor Act probing employment ofcontract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service , the Industrial Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has beeninterposed 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 is a mere ruse / camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislation so as to deprive theworkers of the benefit thereunder. If the comraci isfound to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose .
16. As announced by the Apex Cour. , on issuance of a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute brought before it by the contract labour in regard to conditions of his service, Handustrial adjudicator will have to consider the whether the contractor has ndertaker been interposed either than ofle to produce any given in the carnem or for
supply of the real tabour for the two of the
establishment genuine contract or it is s mere ruse/
camouflage to erempuance of beneficial legislation
so as to deprive- die workers of the benefits therein . Thus it
was ruled that a contract labour can raise a dispute before they fall in three classes : ( 1 ) 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 ) ofthe CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of contract labour working in the establishment was ordered. (2 ) where contract was found to be a sham and nominal , rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held , in fact and in reality, the employees ofthe principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to the abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the court pierce the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory obligation ofmeraiung a canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of the contractor , the courts 1504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of ic and in case the contract is found to be not genuine Para niere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer. Ae Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. [ 1960 ( 111.253 ), which was referred with approval in Stcel Authority of India .
workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise , the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make -believe trappings of detachment from the management cannot snap the real -life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off. Of course , ifthere is total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen , the employment is , in substance and real - life terms , by another . The management's adventitious connections cannot ripen into real employment " 17 la Shivaandan Sharma [ 1955 ( 1 ) LLJ 688 ] , the ponent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a contract to the Freasures who appointed cashiers , int luding the appellant Head Cashier. The question before Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the Bank On construction of the agreement entered into the Bank and the Treasure , the Court laid down:
As noted above , this precedent does not present an illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position to the effect that the contract labours were employees of the principal employer and not of the contractor.
"If a master employs a servant and authorizes himto employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a col consideration , the employees thus appointed by the servant would be equally with the employer, servant of the master ."
In the above precedent the Apex Court for the first time laiddown the crucial test of supervision and control for determining the relationship of employer and employee .
18 In Hussambhai ( supra) the petitioner, who was nufacturing ropes , entrusted the work to a contractor who engaged his own workers . When , after some time , the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial dispute that they, weredenied employment by the petitioner. On reference ofthat dispute , the labour court passed an award against the petitioner. When matter reached the Apex Court , on examination of various factors and applying the effective control test, it was held that though there was no direct relationship between the petitioner and the workers yet on fting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment , the naked truth, thoughdrapped indifferent perfect paper arrangement, was that the real ear foyer was the petitioner, not the immediate contractor.
Apex Court stated law in following words:
19. In Steel Authority of India ( supra ) it has been ruled that the term " contract labour " is a species of workman .A workman may be hired: ( 1) in an establishment by the principal employer or by his agent with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, or ( 2 ) in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work ofan establishment by the principal employer through a contractor , he merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But when a workman is hired inor in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai's case (supra ) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation case [ 1999 (6 ) S.C.C. 439] etc .; if the answer is inaffirmative , the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative, theworkman will be a contract labour .
In view of the legal proposition , referred above , it is concluded that the claimants can maintain this dispute against the Corporation since they agitate that the contract agreement between the Corporation and the contractor is sham and nominal .
"Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another , that other is, in fact , the employer. He has economic control over the workers ' subsistance , skill , and continued employment . If he , for any reason , chokes off, the worker is , virtually, laid off . The presence of intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex - contractor is of no consequence when , on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment , we discern the naked truth , though Prared in different perfect paper arrangement , that
the real employer is the management , not the
20.Whether any directions for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer can be issued, when the contractor or the principal employer had violated the provisions of the Contract Labour Act ? To find an answer, provisions of that Act are to be examined . The Contract Labour Act regulates mmediate tractor ***. If the livelihood of the 1505
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ) ]
conditions of workers in contract labour system and provides for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided by Section 10 of that Act . In regard to regulatory measures Section 7 requires the principal employer to get itself registered , while Section 12 obliges every contractor to obtain a licence , under the provisions of that Act. Section 9 places an embargo on the principal employer of an establishment from employing contactor labour in the establishment , when either it is not registered or its registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the Contract Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor not to undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence . Sections 23 , 24 and 25 make contraventions of the provisions of that Act or Rules made thereunder penal . In Dena Nath (1992 Lab . I.C. 75 ) the Apex Court considered the question , whether non -compliance of the provisions of Sections 7 and 12 by the principal employer and the contractor respectively would make the contract labour employed by the principal employer as the employee of the latter . It was suled that only consequence of non - compliance either by the principal employer of Section 7 or by the contractor in complying the provisions of Section 12 is that they are liable for prosecution under the said Act. But the employees employed through the contractor cannot be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer.
21. In the Steel Authority of India (supra ) the Apex Court laid emphasis " . the consequence of violation of Section 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel , be if absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or harsher punishment . Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such , clearly impermissible " . The above authoritative pronouncements make it clear that on violations of the provisions of the Contract Labour Act or Rules made thereunder, the contract labour could not be deemed to have become the employee ofthe principal employer .
22. Whether this Tribunal has power to order for abolition of contract labour system in the establishment of the management ? For an answer, legal dicta is to be considered . Before enactment of the Contract Labour Act , the industrial adjudicator, in appropriate cases , used to issue directions to the establishment concerned to abolish or modify system of contract labour. Reference can be made to precedents in United Salt Works and Industries Ltd. [1962 ( 1 ) LLJ . 131 ] , Shibu Metal Works [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ . 717] , National Iron & Steel Co. [ 1967 ( 11 ) LLJ . 23 ] and Ghatge and Patil ( Transport ) Pvt . Ltd. ( 1968 ( I ) LLJ . 566 ] . The National Commission on Labour ( 1966 ) in para 29.11 of its report , enumerated those factors , on which abolition of contract labour was ordered, thus:
"29.11 . Judicial awards have discouraged the practice ofemployment of contract labour , particularly when the work is ( i ) perennial and must go on from day to day; ( ii ) incidental and necessary for the work of the factory; ( iii ) sufficient to employ a considerable number ofwhole time workmen ; and ( iv) being done in most concerns through regular workmen. ' These awards also came out against the system of 'middlemen' . "
23.After Contract Labour Act was brought on statute book , the Apex examined jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator to issue directions to the establishment to abolish contract labour in Vegoils Private Ltd. [ 1971 ( 2 ) S.C.C. 724 ] and ruled that it would be proper that the question , whether the contract labour in the appellant industry was to be abolished or not , be left to be dealt with by the appropriate Government under the provisions of thatAct, if it becomes necessary . The observations made by the Court are extracted thus:
" The appropriate Government when taking action under Section 10 will have an overall picture of the industries carrying on similar activities and decide whether contact labour is to be abolished in respect ofany of the activities of that industry. Therefore , it is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to decide about the abolition of contract labour , or to putit differently, to prohibit the employment of contract labour, is now to be done in accordance with Section 10. Therefore , it is proper that the question whether the contract labour regarding loading and unloading in the industry of the appellant is to be abolished or not , is left to be dealt with by the appropriate Government under the Act, if it becomes necessary. On this ground , we are of the opinion that the direction of the Industrial Tribunal in this regard will have to be set aside . *** . The legality of the direction given by the Industrial Tribunal abolishing contract labour in respect of loading and unloading from May 1 , 1971 , can also be considered from another point of view. The Central Act, as mentioned earlier , had come into force on February 10 , 1971. Under Section 10 of the said Act the jurisdiction to decide matters connected with prohibition of contract labour is now vested in the appropriate Government . Therefore, with effect from February 10 , 1971 , it is only the appropriate Government that can prohibit contract labour by following the procedure and in accordance with the provisions ofthe Central Act . The Industrial Tribunal . in the circumstances , will have no jurisdiction. through its award dated November 20 , 1970, to give a direction in that respect which becomes , enforccable after the date of the coming into force of the Central Act . In any event , such a direction contained in the award cannot be enforceable from a date when abolition of contract labour can only be done by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. " 1506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
24. In Gujarat Electricity Board [ 1995 (5 ) SCC 27 ] the same view was taken by the Apex Court holdings that the authority to abolish the contract labour vests in the appropriate Government and not in any court including the industrial adjudicator. It would be apposite to reproduce the observation of the court thus:
the necessary material before him to decide whether theworkmen of the erstwhile contractor should be directed to be absorbed by the principal employer, how many ofthem and on what terms . If, however, the contract labour is not abolished , the industrial adjudicator has to reject the reference .
"53. Our conclusions and answers to the questions raised are , therefore , as follows:
(iv) Even after the contract labour system is abolished , the direct employees of the principal employer can raise an industrial dispute for absorption of the ex - contractor's workmen and the adjudicator on the material placed before him can decide as to who and how many of the workmen should be absorbed and on what terms ." (i) 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 the industrial adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so .
25. In Steel Authority of hadia ( supra) the Apex Court had referred the precedents in Vegoils case ( supra) and Gujarat Electricity Board ( supra) with approval . Thus it emerges that power to abolish contract labour system vests with the appropriate Government , under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, and not with any court including the industrial adjudicator . This Tribunal has not been saddled with any responsibility to abolish contract labour in an establishment, on parameters enacted in sub -section (2) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.
(ii) Ifthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 refcrence, the dispute being not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 ( k) of the !DAct. He will not be competent to give any reliefto the workmen of the erstwhile contractor even if the abour contract is abolished by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of theAct .
26. Now i would turn to facts of the present controversy . It is not a case where an employee of a contractor, employed in a statutory canteen , has invoked thejurisdiction of this Tribunal . This matter, as projected bythe claimants, is left to be approached on the proposition as to whether contract agreement entered into between the Corporation and the contractor was sham and nominal . In order to ascertain genuineness of the contract agreement , entered into between the Corporation and the contractor , its contents are to be scanned . Shri Bhandula proved that documents as Ex.MWI / 1 , in order to project that work relating to providing security services was awarded to the contractor by the Corporation . When this document is scanned, it came to light that it was agreed upon between the contractor and the Corporation that persons employed by the contractor were to be engaged by the latter as its own servants . Clause 8.2 of Ex.MW1 / 1 highlights that proposition 1: was detailed therein that the contractor shall carryout his responsibilitics under the Factories Act , the Workmen Compensation Act. Employees Provident Fund Act and any other enactment in respect of its employees. Conditions of the contract are enumerated in sheet annexed with Ex.MW1 / 1 , wherein it has been provided that depolyment of security guards as per shift and points will be decided in consultation with Manager ( Security) as per the requirement from time to time. The contractor was saddled with responsibility to pay wages, provident fund. bonus , medical leaves etc. to the claimants . It was made clear therein that no liability in respect of above benefits wonid be fastened by the contactor to the Corporation . In ( iii) it the labour contract is genuine a composite industrial dispute can still be raised for abolition of the contract labour and their absorption . However, the dispute , will have to be raised invariably by the direct employees of the principal employer . The industrial adjudicator, after receipt of the reference of such dispute will have first to direct the workmen to approach the appropriate Government for abolition ofthe contract labour under Section 10 of the Act and keep the reference pending . If pursuant to such reference , the contract labour is abolished by the appropriate Government , the industrial adjudicator will have to give opportunity to the parties to place
case services rendered by the employees of the contractor are not to the satisfaction of the Corporation or any of the terms of the contract are violated, right was reserved by 1507 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 30th January, 2013
the Corporation to terminate the contract without any notice. Liability was imposed on the contractor to ensure that no unlawful act is resorted to by his employees while on duty. The contactor was having sole responsibility for settling/ resolving any dispute of his employees , during currency ofthe contract . Necessary equipment like Torch, Lathi etc. required for the security guards , were to be supplied by the contractor.
S.O. 477. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2012-13 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area , M /s . ECL, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013.
[No. L- 22012/54/2011 - IR (CM- II )] B. M. PATNAIK , Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Date: 11-1-2013
Case No. CGIT/NG /05/2012-13 PartyNo. 1:
The Chairman -cum - Managirig Director, Western Coalfields Ltd. , HQ, Coal Estate , CivilLines, Nagpur - 1 , Maharashtra . Versus
Party No. 2:
27. Out of contents of Ex.MW1 / 1 , it emerged over the record that the contractor was not only the pay master, but exercised economic , financial , administrative , disciplinary and supervisory control on the claimants . As pointed out above , there were supervisors , who used to supervise work of the claimants . Those supervisors were engaged by the contractor. Consequently, these factors makeme to conclude that the contract agreement Ex . MWI / 1 is a genuine document . No efforts were made by the Corporation and the contactor to evade provisions of beneficial legislations One cannot comment that the Corporation prepared Ex.MW1 / 1 as a perfect paper arrangement, in order to deprive the claimants from their rights and privileges , Genuineness of the contract agreement cannot be doubted. No evidence worth name emerged to establish that the contract agreement was sham. Consequently, it is concluded that this Tribunal cannot grand indulgence to the claimants and declare them to be employees of the Corporation.
The Regional Director, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh , (INTUC) , WCL, B/51 , Koyla Vihar, Civil Lines , Nagpur - 1 , Maharashtra.
AWARD (Dated: 11th January, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management ofWestern Coalfields Limited and the union , Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC ) , for adjudication, as per letter No.L- 22012/54/2011 - IR (CM- H) dated 17-5-2012 , with the following schedule: ---
28. Out of facts detailed above it stood established that the claimant has not been able to pin point that the contract entered into between the Corporation and the contractor was sham and bogus . There is a complete vacuum of evidence to show that the contract was entered into with a view to evade labour legislations . Noeyebrow could be raised about legality and genuineness of the contract , entered into between the Corporation and the contractor . Hence , it cannot be concluded that the contract was ruse . No circumstances are there to announce that the claimants are deemed to be employees of the Corporation. Their claim is liable to be dismissed . Accordingly, the claim is discarded . An award is passed in favour of the Corporation and against the claimants . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of the Western Coal Field Limited, Nagpur through its Chairman - cum- Managing Director in not providing facility of check off system and not giving representation in bilateral discussion in existing I.R. system of the WCL to the disputant union i.e. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC ) is legal and justified? To what relief the disputant union is entitled to?"
का.आ. 477. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 5-2012-13 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. Onreceipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement. On receipt of the notice , an application was sent by the petitioner (union ) by post for time to file statement of claim and the said application was received on 11-7-2012. However, no statement of claim was filed by [ सं. एल-22012/ 54/2011- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी 1508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Versus
The ExecutiveEngineer/Chief Engineer, Bhakra Mechanical Division . Nangal Township . Distt . Ropar ( Punjab ) .
Respondent the petitioner. Management appeared in the case through their advocate on 26-9-2012 . Inspite of several adjournments for filing statement of claim by the petitioner. neither any statement of claim was filed nor the petitioner made its appearance. So , the case was closed and was posted for passing of " no dispute award " .
Appearances
For the Workman :
Sh. R. K. Singh Parmar A R.
For the Management: Sh . S.K. Goel Law Officer .
3. As no statement of claim has been filed and the parties have not been appearing . it is found that the parties are not interested to proceed with the case . Hence , it is ordered:-...
ORDER
AWARD
Passed on 11th January , 2013
The reference be treated as " no dispute award " .
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2013
Central Government vide Notification No. L- 23012/ 2/95 - IR( C - II ) Dated 14-7-1995 , by exercising its powers under Section 10. Sub- Section ( 1 ) , Clause ( d) and Sub- Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of BBMB Nangal Township in terminating the services of Sh . Pratap Singh and seven others is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date ?"
का.आ. 478. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भाखड़ा मेकिनीकल डिविजन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 960/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Vide orderdated 31-8-1995 the Ministry supplied the list ofthe claimant - workmen, they are
1. Pratap Singh
[सं. एल -23012/ 2/ 1995- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
2. Jagat Ram
New Delhi , the 30th January, 2013
3. Sanjiv Kumar
4. Ram Nath
5. Ghanshyam
6. Daulat Ram
7. JitRam
8. Gopal Krishan
S.O. 478.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 960/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum - Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BMD and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013 .
[No. L-23012/2/ 1995 - IR ( C- II ) ]
Β . Μ . ΡΑΪΝΑIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer
Case No. I. D. 960/2005 , Registered on 15-9-2005
The President, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh , Nangal Township, Distt . Ropar (Punjab) .
... Petitioner
As per claim statement the workmen were employed in the Railway Sub- Division of the Bhakra Mechanical Division as skilled mazdoor on daily wages and were retrenched from service w.e.f. 31-5-1990 without any notice. notice pay or retrenchiment compensation . While retrenching the petitioners juniors were retained and after retrenchment fresh hands were also engaged. Thus there is a violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act . However, the petitioners were re -employed on 15-12-1992 but again were retrenched on 31-5-1993 without following the procedure of ' first come last go ' and juniors were regularized. According to the petitioners both the terminations were illegal and void and they are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and their wages be paid as if they are regular employees like the other juniors regularized in service since 1989.
1509 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ofenvelops of letters showing . Postal Authority remarks- they are Annexures 8 , 9, 10, 12 and 14 of the affidavit ofthe management-witness. The witness further alleged that subsequently workman Pratap Singh and Ghanshyam received the notice, RC and wages in lieu of notice at their own on 9-6-1991 . Regarding the other workmen the witness deposed in his affidavit that unpaid amount was deposited with A.O. The management has filed the unpaid acquaintance roll as Annexure 6 of the affidavit . Management also filed letter Exhibit MW1 / 18 by which the SDO informed the Executive Engineer about the refusal ofthe workmen to receive the notice .
It was argued on behalf of the workmen that the compensation was not paid at the time of retrenchment but after retrenchment and therefore the provisions of Section 25F were violated.
The claim was contested by the management . It was contended that the services of the workmen were not required after completion of the job for which they had been employed on daily wages . However, the workman along with the other workmen obtained stay order in writ petition from the Hon'ble High Court and the services or the workmen-claimants were terminated according to their seniority after the dismissal of the Writ Petition after observing necessary formalities required under the law. It was denied that any person junior to claimants was retained in service at the time of their termination . According to management workmen were recalled to work when the necessity arose due to some additional work in the Railway Sub - Division and their services were terminated on completion of the specific work for which they were recalled strictly according to their seniority and the claim therefore has no merit.
In evidence only four workmen namely Pratap Singh , Jeet Ram , Jagat Ram and Ghanshyam were examined . While the other four i.e. Sanjiv Kumar , Ram Nath , Daulat Ram and Gopal Krishan were not examined. On behalf of the management Engineer Pritpal Singh was examined . Parties relied on certain papers also.
I have heard the AR of the workmen and the Law Officer ofthe management . Vide statement dated 1-8-2011 of the AR the claim was pressed only for four workmen namely Pratap Singh , Jeet Ram , Jagat Ram and Ghanshyam i.e. the workmen who appeared in witness - box during hearing. So the claim remains confined now to workman Pritpal Singh , Jeet Ram , Jagat Ram and Ghanshyam only. The workmen have challenged the retrenchment of 31-5-1990 and of 31-5-1993 both . Let us examine the validity or otherwise of both the retrenchments separately.
From the evidence led by management it is clear that workmen had been given notice of retrenchment and they had been asked to collect the amount of retrenchment compensation and compensation in lieu of one month's notice from the Office of Executive Engineer Bhakra Nangal Division. It is now well settled that giving notice or tendering payment is enough and refusal to receive the notice or payment by the workmen does not invalidate the notice or tender of payment . Merely because the workman declines to receive the notice or the payment tendered to him it cannot be said that he has not been given notice or paid wages. Occasionally it may happen that at the time of retrenchment; a workman may dodge accepting compensation with a view to invalidate the retrenchment . In such a case it may be difficult to make him accept payment, if he will not himselfdo that , and the employer will be in a quandary. I am therefore of the view that while retrenching the workman the provisions of Section 25F were duly complied with . Regarding the violation of Section 25G it has been stated in the claim statement that from the Office Order No. 1936-53 /9E dated 27-6-1990 filed by the workman, it is clear that the workman Dharampal and 13 others who were juniors to the claimant - workman were retained in the service .
1. Retrenchment of 31-5-1990- This retrenchment has been assailed on the ground of violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. As per claim statement the workmen were retrenched without notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation and while terminating their service their juniors were retained . Regarding the violation of Section 25F of the Act workmen stated. that they were not given any notice before their disengagement and were not asked to receive the . arrears ofwages .
Regarding this letter it was argued on behalf of the management that from the letter itself it is clear that it is in deference ofthe order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in a Writ Petition No.2243/ 1990 titled Dharampal and others . The workmen in their affidavits have named Hari Om , Ram Heth and Pancham Lal as theirjuniors who have been retained in service . But there is no evidence in support of this allegation . Workman Ghanshyam in his statement during cross - examination has named three other persons in this regard but he has admitted that those persons are unskilled labourers . Similarly Jeet Ram has also named several persons junior to him but he also has admitted that the said juniors were unskilled labourers. It is therefore clear that the workmen have failed to prove that Pratap Singh and Ghanshyam however during their cross -examination , admitted to have received arrears of wages and wages for the notice period . As per affidavit/ statement of management - witness notice of retrenchment dated 30-5-1990 Exhibit MW1 / 17 had been issued and the workmen had been directed to collect the retrenchment compensation and compensation in lieu of one month's notice in cash from the Office of Executive Engineer. But the workmen refused to collect the same . On their refusal the same was sent at their home address through registered post . But the registered letters were seceived back from the Postal Authority. Management has filed the photocopies
537 12-24 1510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2013 while retrenching their service juniors were retained in service .
From the above going discussion it is thus clear that the retrenchment of the workman - claimant on 31-5-1990 is not in violation of Section 25F or 25G of the Act .
S.O. 479. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.180/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013.
2. Termination of 31-5-1993 . The tenure which ended on 31-5-1993 was of a very short period . The workmen had been re - employed on 15-12-1992 and were retrenched on 31-5-1993. It has been assailed only on the ground that the juniors to the workmen were regularized. The management in its written statement has alleged that this contention is baseless .
[No. 1.-20012/231 /2001 - IR (C- I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. I), DHANBAD IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10( 1 ) (D) (2A) OF I. D. ACT, 1947 Ref. No. 180 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of Barora Coal Washery ofM / s . BCCL .
AND Theirworkmen
The workmen in their affidavit have alleged that the persons named in the affidavits who were junior to the cla.imant-workman in the category of skilled mazdoor were brought to the seniority list of the unskilled mazdoor and thus retained in the service . But as it has already been stated, the order in this regard had been passed in deference to the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court . There is no evidence in support of the contention of the claimant- workmen that juniors to them were retained or regularized . Against it from the staterment of Jeet Ram the juniors who were retained in service and regularized were ofdifferent category. Hence , no violation of Section 25G is proved in the retrenchment of31-5-1993 .
Present : - SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN , Presiding Officer
Appearances:
None
For the Employers : -
Forthe workman . :-
SriK.ChakrabortyAdv.
State: Jharkhand .
Industry: Coal .
Dated . 18-1-2013
AWARD
In the claim statement violation of Section 25H of theAct has also been alleged but re - employment interms of Section 25H of the Act presupposes a valid termination and therefore constitutes a different causes of action . It can be gone into only if a reference is made in this regard. From the above going discussion it is clear that termination of the services of the workmen- claimant is legal andjustified and the workmen are not entitled to any relief. It may be reiterated that vide statement dated 1-8-2011 of the AR of the workmen the claim regarding claimant . Sanjiv Kumar, Ram Nath , Daulat Ram and Gopal Krishan was not pressed . The reference is decided against the claimant- workmen . Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .
By order No.1-20012/231 /2001 - IR ( C - I ) , dt . 10-8-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2013
" क्या भारत कोकिंग लि. वरोरा कोल बारारी के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्रीमती किरण देवी धर्मपत्नी श्री जयकुमार को NCWA- V के पैरा 9: 3: 2 के अन्तर्गत नियुक्ति न किया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो उक्त आश्रित किस लाभ की पात्र है ? " का.आ. 479. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 180/2001 ) को प्रकाशिद करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
After receipt ofthe reference , both parties are noticed. Respective parties filed their written statement . Workman representative is present but he is not interested to contest the case and not pressing . It is felt there is no-dispute between the parties. Hence " No Dispute " Award passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
[सं. एल-20012/231/2001-आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1511
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 480.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 106/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/325/1994- आई आर (सी -1) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2013
S.O. 480.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref.No. 106/1995 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013 .
[No. L-20012/325 / 1994 - IR ( C - I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . I) , DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10( 1 ) ( D) (2A) OF 1. D. ACT, 1947
Ref. No. 106 of 1995
Employers in relation to the management of Barora Area No. 1 ofM/s .. B. C. C. L.
AND
Theirworkmen
Present : - SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, PresidingOfficer
Appearances:
None
FortheEmployers: -
None
For the workman . : -
State : Jharkhand .
Industry: - Coal .
Dated. 18-1-2013
AWARD
By order No.L - 20012/325 / 94 - IR (C - 1 ) , dt . 25-8-1995 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
"Wheter the action of the General Manager , Barora Area -I of M/s . BCCL in denying to regularize Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma , General Mazdoor as Assistant Store Keeper is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "
After receipt ofthe reference ; both parties are noticed . Respective parties filed their written statement . But subsequently none appears though noticed. It is felt there is no dispute between the parties . Hence " No Dispute " Award passed . Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 481.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 57/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -20012/65/ 2004- आई आर ( सी-1 ) } एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2013
S.O. 481. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref.No. 57/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL . , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013.
[No. L- 20012/65 /2004 - IR ( C - I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . I ), DHANBAD
In The Matter of a Referance U/ s 10( 1 ) ( D) (2A) of I. ID . Act , 1947
Ref. No. 57 of 2004
Employers in relation to the management of western washery zone of M/ s . B.C. C. L..
AND Their workmen
Present: - SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN . Presiding Officer 1512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART 11---SEC . 3 (ii) ]
===
Appearances:
the management of M/s . BCCL, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013 .
None
For the Employers :
[No. L- 20012/465/2000- IR ( C -1 )
For the workman .:
None
M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
State Jharkhand .
Industry: Coal .
ANNEXURE
Dated the 18th January, 2013
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO.1), DHANBAD AWARD
In The Matter of a Referance U/ s 10( 1 ) ( D ) (2A ) of 1. D. Act , 1947
Ref. No. 110 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area ofM/ s . B. C. C. L.
By Order No.L -20012/ 65 /2004 - IR ( C - 1 ) , dt . 16-6-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
AND
SCHEDULE
Their workmen
Present: - SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN . PresidingOfficer
Appearances:
None
Forthe Employers : -
Whether the action of the management of Western Washery Zone , BCCL , Mohuda to change the date of increment of Sri A. K. Lal from June to January and his increment code from " F " to " E " is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ?"
For the Workman.:-
None
State: Jharkhand .
Industry: Coal .
Dated . 18th Jan. , 2013
AWARD
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed . Respective parties filed their written statement . But subsequently none appears though noticed . , It is felt there is no dispute between the parties . Hence " No Dispute " Award passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2013
ByOrder No.L-20012 / 465 / 2000 - IR ( C- I ) , dt . 30-4-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 482. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं .1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 110: 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 301-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of BCCL , Sijua Area in denying employment to the step son of the workman Sri Dulia Kamin is just , proper and legal ? If not , to what relief is the said dependent entitled ?"
[ सं. एल-20012/465/2000 आई आर ( सी -1 )]
एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2013
After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. They filed their respective written statement and rejoinder has been filed . On behalf of the management one witness examined and one document is marked . But from the side of the workman , none appears inspite of valid notice About 11 years has been elapsed, it is felt , there is no dispute between the parties.
Hence "No Dispute " Award passed . Communicate totheMinistry.
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer S.O. 482. In pursuanceursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 110/2001 ) Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum - Labour Con No.1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to 1513
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii) |
नई दिल्ली . 31 जनवरी , 2013
consideration of failure report , submitted by the ConciliationOfficer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to his Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 11012/47/2001/ 1R-(C - I ) New Delhi dated 21-09-2001 with following terms:
483, औद्योगिक विशर अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 44 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जैगसन एयरलाइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके मंगों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (आई डी सख्या 105/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करता है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether action of the management of M/s Jagson Airlines Ltd. In terminating services of Shri C.L. Gupta, Aircraft Maintenance Engineer , Category (C) with effect from 29.12.1999 and non payment of salary for the months ofJuly, August and November 98 is fair, legal and just ? If not , to what relief is the said workman entitled to ? " [में एल-11012/47/2001- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2013
2. Claim statement was filed by the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer , namely, Shri C.L. Gupta, pleading that he was appointed by the Airlines vide letter dated 05.05.97 . His consolidated salary was Rs.15,000.00 per month . Main predominant nature of his duties were highly skilled/technical . He used to perform duties of engine installation , propeller inspection, control of aircraft and filed work etc. Service Certificate , issued by the Airlines . unfolds that aforesaid duties were performed by him, hence he was a workman . He projects that it is settled law that Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is a workman .
S.O. 483 - in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of jagson Airlines Ltd. and their workınan, which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013 .
[No. L- 11012/47 /2001 - IR (C - I ) ] M.K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , DELHI
1.D.No.105/2011
Shri C.L.Gupta.
3.His services were terminated by the Airlines with effect from29-12-1999 vide letter dated 01-01-2000 , pleads the claimant. Termination of his service is illegal and invalid. No notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was given to him when his services were terminated . Act of the Airlines in terminating his services is violative of provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) .Action of the Airlines amounts to unfair labour practice . Neither any charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry conducted against him . No reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to him, before terminating his services .
Workman .......
193 - E . Defence Colony, Kanpur208010 .
Versus
The Director,
Management ........
Mis. Jagson Airlines I td .. 12 -E . Bandana Building , 11. Tolstoy Marg . New Delhi.
AWARD
An Aircraft Maintenance Engineer was appointed by Mis . Jagson Airlines Ltd. ( in short the Airlines ) . His wages for the months of July, August and November 98 were not paid. He requested the Airlines to release his wages , but in vain . His services were dispensed with the Airlines with effect from 29.12.1999 , vide letter dated 01.01.2000 . He raised a demand on the Airlines for reinstatement in services as well as for release of his salary, which demand was not conceded to . Aggrieved by the said act of the Airlines , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Airlines contested his claim , conciliation proceedings ended into a failure . On
4. Shri M.M. Mehta and Shri K. Kumar are serving the Airlines as Aircraft Maintenance Engineers despite reaching the age of 72 years . No age limit is prescribed for Aircrati Maintenance Engineer in whose favour licence has been issued by the Director General , Civil Aviation , Government of India , New Delhi . Claimant was holding licence for Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Category ( C ) which was valid upto 09-02-2002 . Renewal of that licence depended on his continuance in employment . Since his services were abruptly terminated, which was a disability for renewal of his licence . Claimant further pleads that his wages for the months of July. August and November 1998 were not paid . Service benefits , such as bonus , provident fund, medical leaves etc. were not granted to him . Vide letter dated 26-02-1999, he made a request for release of his salary for three months . Instead of paying his salary, his services were terminated by the Airlines , which act amounted to victimization . Before the Conciliation Officer , theAirlines claimed that a sum of Rs . 1,53,500.00 was earned by him, out ofwhich a sum , of Rs . 1,35,000.00 was paid and there was a balance of Rs . 18,500.00 , which was payable to 1514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
PART II SIC. 3( ii ) ]
and incorrect circumstances were detailed in the clam statement.
him. According to him, these facts and figures , placed before the Conciliation Officer, were wrong . The Airlines adopted the policy of hire and fire , which is violative of natural justice . He was appointed by the Director of the Airlines and his services were dispensed with by an officer of lower rank . The authority who terminated his services was incompetent todo so . He claims that order of termination may be held void ab - initio and he may be reinstated in service with back wages and all consequential benefits besides salary for the months of July, August and November 1998 .
9. Evasive reply was made by the Airlines to the proposition that salary for the months of July. August and November 1998 was not paid to the clamant . It is also not disputed that the claimant demanded release of his salary for the aforesaid period vide letter dated 15-03-2000. However , the Airlines claim that his letter was duly replied . Issuance of appointment letter by the Director of the Airlines is also an admitted fact . The Airlines does not dispute that his termination order was signed by a person lower in rank than the appointing authority. However , it has been claimed that termination was legal and passed by the competent authority. Since Shri Gupta attained age of superannuation , he is not entitled for reinstatement in service of the Airlines . It has been claimed that an award may be passed in favour of the Airlines and against the claimant.
In rejoinder, facts pleaded in the claim statement have been renerated .
On pleadings of the partics , following issues were settled by my learned predecessoг:
5. Demurral was made by the Airlines pleading that erder of reference is composite, wherein twodifferent matters are referred for adjudication . The issue relating to eactiement of wages does not fall within the ambit of section 2 A of the Act . Dispute relating to release of his wages for the months of July, August and November 1998 was not espoused by a considerable number of workmen and as such, it is not an industrial dispute . The Airlines pleads that the appropriate Government reached a conclusion that salary for July, August and November 1998 was not paid to the claimant. It was not within competence of the appropriate Government to decide a complicated question , whether relating to fact or law. Therefore , reference made by the appropriate Government is not proper.
( 1) Whether dispute raised pertaining to wages is not covered under Section 2 (k ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(2) Whether the claimant is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?
(3) As in terms of reference .
(4) What relief the workman is entitled to?
5. The Airlines asserts that the claimant was not performing manual , technical or clerical duties. His main duties were administrative, managerial and supervisory. His salary was far above Rs . 1600.00 per month . Hence , he does not answer status ofa workman . Shri Gupta was above the age of superannuation . He could be superannuated at anytime .He was not entitled to continue in employment of the Airlines , indefinitely.
12.Vide order No.Z - 22019/6 /2007/ IR-( C- II ) . New Delhi dated 04-02-2008 , case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.ll. New Delhi , for adjudication by the appropriate Government .It was re-transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide order No. 7-22019/ 6 /2007/IR- (C- 11) New Deihi dated 30-3-2011 .
7. Airlines projects that there is no dispute relating to his appointment as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer , Category ( C) vide appointment letter dated 05-05-1997 . Facts to the effect that the claimant used to perform duties of engine installation , propeller inspection , control of aircrafts and other field work etc. Were also not disputed. Facten oftermination of his services , with effect from 29- 12-1999 , has also been conceded by the Airlines . It is also not a matter ofdispute that termination of his services was not based on any misconduct or domestic enquiry.
13. Claimant examined himself in support ofhis claim. Shri Ajay Singhal , entered the witness box to testify facts on behalf of the Airlines . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
14.Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri B.K. Prasad, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf ofthe claimant. Shri Vipin Kumar, authorised representative , detailed his point of view on behalf of the Airlines . I have givenmy careful to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
Issue No. 1 .
8. The Airlines opted not to give an answer to the proposition that Shri M.M. Mehta and Shri K. Kumar were serving as Aircraft Maintenance Engineers even on reaching the age of 72 years . It also came up with no response to the proposition that there was no age limit prescribed for an incumbent to serve as Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Validity of licence , issued in favour of the claimant , upto 09-02-2002 and its renewal by the Director General , Civil Aviation, depended upon continuance of the claimant in service were also not been disputed . The Airlines made an evasive reply to these facts projecting that misconceived
15. At the outset, Shri Vipin Kumar argued that reference order is composite , which contains question 1515 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II---खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
be an employee or a class of employees . The first point , therefore , to be noted , perhaps self evident , is that the phrase " employer and workmen " , the plural may inclu singular on either side or any permutation of singular or plural , the masculine including the feminine . In order, therefore , to determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an " an industrial dispute " or not , itmust first be determined whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of clause ( s) of Section 2 of the Act . This proposition is taken for consideration in subsequent Sections , while adjudicating issue No.2 , referred above.
relating to legality and justifiability of termination ofservices of the claimant with effect from 29-12-1999 and non- payment of salary for the months of July, August and November, 1998. He contents that the question , relating to non -payment of salary of the claimant for the aforesaid months falls within the ambit of industrial dispute, defined in Section 2 (k ) of the Act. According to him , such an industrial can be raised by a union or considerable number of the workmen in the establishment of the management . He argued that the cause of the claimant , relating to non- payment of his salary for the months of July, August and November , 1998 , has not been espoused either by a union or considerable number of workmen in the establishment ofthe management and as such it does not acquire status of an industrial dispute . According to him , this Tribunal cannot entertain the dispute relating to non -payment of salary for July, August and November , 1998 , since it is an individual dispute . Contra to it , Shri Prasad presents that the said dispute was referred by the appropriate Government alongwith issue relating to legality and justifiability oftermination of services of the claimant with effect from29-12-1999 , which is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2A of the Act. When the appropriate Government made reference of the dispute , which was an industrial within the meaning of Section 2A of the Act, it was within its competence to add a question relating to non -payment of salary of the claimant for the aforesaid months , for adjudication . He presents that the submission made by the Airlines is uncalled for .
19. The object of the Act is to protect workman against victimization by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner . The Act, however ,does not provide for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests . Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial adjudication , keeping in view the social and economic conditions , the needs of the workmen , the requirement of the industry, social justice , relative interests of the parties and common good . These norms have given rights to the industrial employees what may be called industrial rights , as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining . Thistool is resorted to between an employer or group of employers and a bonafide labour union . Policy behind this is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour practices . What imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an " industrial dispute " is that it affects the right of the workman as a class .
16. For an answer to the proposition raised by the Airlines , it is expedient to consider definition of the phrase 'industrial dispute ' . Section 2k ofthe Act, defines industrial dispute , which definition is extractedthus:
"industrial dispute " means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen , or between workmen and workmen , which is connected withthe employment or non - employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;
17. The definition of " Industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts , viz. ( i ) factum of dispute, (2) parties to the dispute , viz . ( a ) employers and employers (b) employer and workmen , or ( c) workmen and workmen , ( 3 ) subject matter of the dispute which should be connected with -( i ) employment or non employment , or (ii) terms ofemployment , or ( iii) condition of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate to an " industry" .
20. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of " industrial dispute " in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ] and ruled that the expression " any person " in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act mustbe read subject to such limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the two crucial limitations are (i ) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause ) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose employment , non employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour, as case may be , the parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest . Where workman raised a dispute as against their employment , the person regarding whose employment, non employer, terms of employment or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised need not be strictly speaking " workman " within the meaning of theAct, but must be one in whose employment , non - employment , terms of employment, or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest . The observations made by the Apex Court are to be extracted thus:
18. The definition of " industrial dispute" is worded in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the meaning given to word workman it would seem to include all " employers " , all " employments " and all " workmen " , whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute between the employers and employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must 1516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) |
"We also agree with the expression " any person " is not co extensive with any workman , particular or otherwise, equal with other , that the crucial test is one of community of interest and the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment , non employment , terms of employment , conditions of labour ( as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest . Whether such direct or substantial interest has been established in a particular case will depend on its facts and circumstances . "
what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute . It was laid thereon that ( 1 ) a dispute between the employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial dispute , (2 ) it cannot be per - se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number of workman. In Dharampal Prem Chand ( 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 668 ] it was commanded by the Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial number of workmen . Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper ( Pvt . ) Limited [ 1970 (1 ) LLJ 132 ] . However in Western India Match Company [ 1970 ( II ) 1.1.1 2561 , the Apex Court referred the precedent in Dima Kuchi Tea Estate's case ( supra ) and ruled that a dispute relating to " any person becomes a dispute where the person inrespect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment . non employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour the parties , dispate fos a direct or substantial interest
23. What a substantial or considerable number of workmen would be in a given case , depend on particular facts of the case . The fact that an " industrial dispute " , is supported by other workmen will have to be established either in the form of a resolution of the union of which workman may be member or of the workmen themselves who support the dispute or in any other manner . From the mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an "industrial dispute " concerning an individual workman is referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen of the establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred that the individual dispute has, been converted into an "industrial dispute" . The Tribunal has therefore , to consider the question as to how many ofthe fellow workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman by participating in the particular resolation of the union. In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. Nevertheless , in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman as their own cause . Law to this effect was laid in P. Somasundrameran [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] .
21. In Kyas Construction Company ( Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1958 (2) LLJ 660 ] the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute need not be a dispute between the employer and his workman and that the definition of the expression " industrial dispute " is wide enough to cater a dispute raised by the employer's workman with regard to non employment of others , who may not be employed as workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalist [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 436 ] has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute , the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom , the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number ofworkmen. In order, therefore , to convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of the employees of the establishment. As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is concerned , the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty arise when the cause of a workman , in a particular establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of which membership is open to workmen of their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has only microscopic number of the workmen as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . A representative character of the union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co workers sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment in which the concerned workman was employee were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship . It must be shown that they were connected together and arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively submitted the dispute.
22. The expression " industrial disputes " has been construedby the Apex Court to include individual disputes , because of the scheme of the Act . In Raghu Nath Gopal Patvardhan [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 27] the Apex Court ruled as to
24. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a registered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507 ] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the Conciliation Officer by.the individual 1517 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
service by his employer has been brought within the ambit of the Act. "
workmen themselves . But their case was subsequently taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co- workmen , if not a majority of them . Since this union was not registered or recognized , the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute" .
27. Now I turn to facts , I his affidavit , Ex . WW1 / A, claimant does not speak that his dispute , relating to non- payment of his wages , was espoused by the union or a considerable number of the workmen in the establishment of the Airlines . In his cross examination , he concedes that his claim has not been espoused by considerable number ofworkmen . Therefore , it is evident that the claimant does not project a case to the effect that his dispute , relating to non -payment of salary for the months of July, August and November 1998 , was espoused by a union or considerable number of workmen in the establishment of the Airlines .
28. An industrial workman has got a very restricted right to move an industrial court when his service conditions have been changed to his prejudice during pendancy of an industrial dispute or he has been dismissed ordischarged during such pendancy, under section 33A of the Act . He has a right to recover certain dues from his employer under section 33 ( C ) ( 2 ) of the Act. An individual workman who had been thrown out of employment had to rely for redress only through aegis of the union or his co- workers where there was no union . Sometimes he found it hard to proceed further or get the union to take up his cause . Besides , there are industries where so far no union have been formed . Workers are still , in certain industrie... unorganised. Enactment of section 2A of the Act was taken up by the Parliament solely with a view to modify the law to raise industrial disputes relating to discharge , dismissa !, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of a workmen.
25. It is not expedient that same union should remain incharge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment , through a particular union for making such a dispute an "industrial dispute" , while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of altogether another union . The crux of the matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen . It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted onlyby a registered trade union . Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would not affect the maintainability of the order of reference . Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon India Limited [ 1974 ( II ) LLJ 34 ] . For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supportedby the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of the workman . In other words , the validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be indged on the facts as they stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause curs . Reference can be made to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. [ 1970 ( 11 ) LLJ 256 ] .
26. A long line of decisions , handed down by the Apex Court , had established that an individual dispute could not per se be an industrial dispute , but could become some if it was taken up by a trade union or a considerable bumber of workmen of the establishment . This position of 1.reated hardship for individual workmen , who were discharged, dismissed , retrenched or whose services were other wise terminated when they could not find support by aunion or any appreciable number of workman to espouse their cause . Section 2A was engrafted in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read as an extension of the definition of industrial dispute contained in clause (k ) of section 2 of the Act. Thus by way of extension of definition of industrial dispute , by insertion of section 2A of the Act , thedispute of an individual workman connected with or arising out of his discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of his
29. Classification between workmen unaided by union or considerable number workmen and workman whose cause is espoused by a union or considerable number ofworkmen has been made by the legislature when provisions of section 2A were brought on the statute book. Thus, it is evident that by way of extension of definition of industrial dispute relating to discharge , dismissal retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of a workman, the legislature provided remedy to the workman who is unaided by a union or considerable number of workmen. However section 2A of the Act does not destroy the concept of individual dispute and collective dispute and such concept still remains as a major class and in all other provisions of the Act . Consequently, it is evident thatexcepting the dispute relating to discharge , dismissal . retrenchment or otherwise termination of services workman , a dispute is to be espoused by a union or considerable number of workmen to acquire status of an industrial dispute . As pointed out above , dispute of the claimant , relating to non - payment of his salary for the months of July, August and November 1998 , has not been espoused either by a union or considerable number of workmen . Thus . second limb of the reference order projects dispute which has not acquired status of an industrial
537453-25 1518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
spate issue is. therefore , answered in favour of tine ord ne and gainst the claimant Essex No. 2
30 in order to clothe himself with characte . of workman, claimant projects in his affidavit Ex. WWI / A that nature of his duties were engine installation , propelier installation , control of aircraft and other field work etc. Mon and predominant nacare of his duties were highly skilled/techmeal, being an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer . During course of cross examination , he narrates that he used to look after engine of the aircraft and its maintenance . He was also asked to act as Store Incharge and perform those duties too . His designation was Deputy Quality Controller.
31. Shri Ajay Singhal unfolds in his affidavit Ex . MWI /A , tendered as evidence , that work of Quality Control Manager and Deputy Quality Control Manager is . totally managerial and supervisory in nature . Duties of such an officer mamly includes assuring quality of aircraft engine manuals of Director General , CivilAviation ( Government of India) through his subordinates . He has to order procurement of materials from market and lessoning with the Director General , Civil Aviation . He represents the Airlines before the authorities . Duties of technicians are fixed and supervised by the engineers , who in turn reports to the Quality Control Manager/Deputy Quality Control Manager. Ordinarily 30-40 persons work under him , including Engineers and Technicians. He has to sanction leave for these employees . Discipline of employees vests in Quality Control Manager/Deputy Quality Control Manger. Quality Control Manager/Deputy Quality Control Manager does not discharge any manual , clerical or operational work . Claimant had the authority for purchase of goods , supervise work of his subordinate , allotment of work to thern , grant or sanction leaves , maintain discipline, control and regulating attendance and duties rotation . Claimant used to correspond independently with private parties . He declares that Shri Gupta was not a workman .
32. In order to appreciate above facts , it would be expedientto consider definition of the term ' workman' . The term " workman " has been defined by section 2( s ) of the Act , which definition is reproduced thus:
"( 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-
[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
( i) who is subjectto 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
fisha is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
( iis) who is , employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
( iv) who , being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees permensem 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 ".
33. The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the term workman . This part of the definition determines a workman by reference to a person (including an apprentice) employed in an " industry " to do any manual , unskilled , skäled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward This part determines what a "werkman " means. The second part is designedto include something more in what the term primarily denotes . By this part of the definition, persen ( i) who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial dispute , or ( ii ) whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute , for the purposes of any proceedings under the Act in relation to such industrial dispute , have been included in the definition of " werkman " . This part gives extended connotation to the expression " workman" . The third part specifically excludes the categories of persons specified in clauses ( i ) to ( iv) of this sub- section . The third parf connotes that even if a person satisfies the requirements of any of the first two parts but ifhe falls in any of the four categories in the third part , he shall be excluded from the definition of workmen' Not olny the persons who are actually employed in an industry but also those who have been discharged,dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute, arrd whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, vouidfall within the ambit of the definition . In other words , the second category of persons included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the definition, only for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other purposes. Therefore, date ofreference is relevant and in case a person falls within the definition of workman on that day, the Tribunal would be vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely because subsequently the workman ceases to be workman .
34. For an employee in an industry to be a workman under this definition, it is manifest that he must be employed todo skilled or unskilled manual work , supervisory work , technical work or clerical work . If the work done by an employee is not of such a nature , he would not be a
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
37. Operation of bank account , controlling of staff,
workman . The specification of the four types of work carrying on correspondence , disbursing salary and
obviously is intended to law down that an employee is to convening meetings , were held to be managerial jobs in
become a workman only if he is employed to do work of Sunil KumarGhosh [ 1978 (37) FLR 247] . The mere fact that
one of those types , while there may be employees who . the employee was designated as a manager or that he
not doing any such work , would be out of the scope of the represented the management in prior adjudication
word workman', without having resort to the exceptions . proceedings cannot by itself prove that he was performing
camot be held that every employee of an industry was to managerial duties' within the meaning of section 2 ( s )( ii) or
be a workman except those mentioned in the four exceptions 2(s)(iii ) ofthe Act . Reliance can be placed on precedent in
as in that case these four classifications need not have P.A.S. Press 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 792 ] . For determination of such a
been mentioned in the definition and a workman could question, no abstract or rigid formula can be employed .
have been defined as a person employed in an industry His main and substantial work is to be looked into.
except in cases where he was covered by one of the Reference can be made to precedent in the management of
exceptions. Scindia Potteris 1974 ( 29 ) FLR 325 ] . In order to take an
15. In cases where an employee is employed to de employer out definition of' workman ', it is necessary t
sais skilled or unskrited manual zat , er supothy show that hemployed, in fact and in substance mairh
work or technical work or clerical are would be no in a managerial or administrative capacity. See Syndicate
difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the Bank Ltd. [1966 ( 11 ) LLJ 194 ] and Ved Prakash Gupta [ 1984
appropriate classification . Frequently, however , an Lab. 1.C. 658).
employee is required to do more than one kind of work . In 38. Merely performing some supervisory duties will
such cases , it would be necessary to determine under which not take out an employce out of the ambit of definition of
Ciawication he will fall for the purpose of finding out workman The word ' supervision ' means to oversee or to
wicha he does not go out of the definition of workman look after. Supervision whichis relevant in this connection
und the exceptions . The principle now well settled is the supervision done by an ereployee ma higher position
thet for this purpose, a workman must be held to be over the employees in the lower position , supervision may
ung-ajed is do that work which is the main work he is be in relation to the work or in relation to the person. The
required to do even though he may meidentally doing other word ' supervisory ' as used in section ( 5 ) of the Act do
type ofwork. not relate to supervision of an automatic plant Mer
36. The words managerial or administrative capacity' machines rut: automatically on power. They do not have to
have not been defined in the Act , therefore have to be be run by human energy. Their running and functioning
interpreted in their ordinary sense . In an establishment , a has to be watched and repaired if anything goes wrong. A
person may be in a managerial capacity or administrative, if person who attends to such machines may either de
the work assigned to him require a degree of initiative technical or manual work within the meaning of section
command and control which are usually associated with 2(s) ofthe Act. But he does not do supervisory work merely
the position of managerial or administrative capacity. In because he looks after the machine . The essence of
deciding such a question , one has to consider the functions supervisory nature of work under section 2 ( s ) of the Act is
and duties assigned to the person . Severai tests, laid down the supervision by one person over the work of another.
by theApex Court in Prem Sagar (1964( 1 ) LLJ47 ] for deciding SeeBlue Star Ltd. ( 1975 (31 ) FLR 102).
the question as to whether a person is employed in 39. A person can be said to be a supervisor if ther
managerial capacity, are as follows are persons working under him , over whose work he has to
"Itis difficult to lay down exhaustively all the tests keep a watch . In other words , he is that person who
which can be reasonably appised in deciding this question, examines and keeps a watch over the work of sus
as several considerations avoid braidercicvantn subordinates and if they err in any way, corrects them . E
deaing with this problem. It may be manned whether the his duty to see that the work in any industrial unit is danc
person had a power to operate on the bank account f in accordance with the manual , if there is one , or at
could he make payments to third parties and enter ime accordance with the usual procedure If is not ' his functio
agreements with them on behalf of the employer was he to bring about any innovation . It is not his function to tak
entitied to represent the employer to the world at large in any managerial decision but it is his duty to see that th
regard to thedealings of the employer with strangers , did persons over whom he is supposed to supervise the wes
he have authority to supervise the work of the clerks assigned to them, they work according to rules and
employed in the establishment, did he have control and regulations. The central concept or suron is the fact
charge ofthe correspondence , could he make commitments that there are certain persons werkisader lum. The by one
on behalf of the employer, could he grant leave to the essence of supervisory work is the
members of the stuff and hold disciplinary proceedings person over the work ofothers . For exeresseg stipervisory
against them , has he power to appoint members ofthe staf ? powers , it may often be necessary that the supervisor
or parish them: these and similar other tests may be himself must have technical expertise , otherwise he may
usefully applied in determining the question about the pet be in a position to exercise proper supervision of the
status of an employee ...
1520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
workinen bandling sophisticated plants and machines . A the cost of repetition , it is pointed out that Shri Singhal
pervisor need not be a manager or an administrator . He declares in his affidavit EX.MWI / A that work of Qua
wai be a workman so long as he does not exceed the wage Control Manager and Deputy Quality Comrol Manag
Rs. 1600.00 per month and irrespective of his salary , totally of managerial and supervisory in nature It mani,
Ct a workman who is to discharge functions mainly of inclades assuring quality of engineering manuals is
Menagenai navire by reason of the duties attached to his
other or powers vested in him by Deputy General , Civil Aviation , through his subordmate
and order procurement of material from market , bests
40 A person cannot be said to be working in a lessoning with the office of Director General , Civil Aviatio
upervisory capacity merely because he used to supervise Quality Control Manager and Deputy Quality Control
Apersonwho helps him in doing the work, which he himself Manager represent the Airlines before the Director General .
is to perform. For instance, a clerk who has been given the Civil Aviation and other authorities Duties of technicians
assistance of the peon cannor de said to be working in a are fived and supervisedby the engineers , who in tuan
isory capacity When one talks of a person working report to the Quality Control Manager Deputy Quality
ás supervisor, one understands it to mean a person who is Control Manager. Ordinarily 30-40 persons work under the
watching the work being done by others to see that it is claimant, including engineers and technicians . The above
being done property See Mather Aviation [ 1977 ( II ) LLJ facts were not dispelled by the claimants when testumors
225 ] . Thus in deitinning the status of an employee , his of Shure Singhal was purified by an ordeal of cross
designation is Bor decisive . What determines the status is examination . Thus it stood established that there were 30-
the fun sferaturen the nature of his duties and functions 40 persons , including technicians and engineers , who were
thegi ham. A supervisor shoulé occupy a position of working under the claimant. Documents , viz . Ex.MWT'I to
wear-ind or decision and should be authorised to act in Ex.MW 1/9 bring it over the record that the claimant used
matters within the limits of his authority without to sanction leaves for his subordinates . Claimant failed to
the sanction of the manager or other supervisors. In the dispel that he used to sanction leaves for his subordinates
absence ofprecise and positive evidence to prove the exact
nature of work which the employee was performing, it 43. Ex.MW1 /9 projects that the claimant used t
cannot be held that he was datag administrative or assign duties of employees working in Quality Control Cell.
upervisory work As emerge out of the Ex.MW 19. claimant assigned duties
oftechnical officer and technical assistants , when Shri Anit
41. When efforts are made to appreciate facts on the Kumar Patel , Technical Officer tendered his resignation in
above lines , it is emerged over the record that no dispute May 1997. He assigned duties of issuance of check A and
was raised from the side of the Airlines that the claimant check B and attending aircrafts for pilots acceptance to
was performing duties of engime installation , propeller Shri Kundan Sharma. Technical Assistant . Preparation of
inspection , control of aircraft and other field work etc. The reports relating to safety audit and internal audit was part
claimant has relied on certificate EX.WW1 / 5 wherein it has ofduties of Shri Hitesh Handa, Technical Officer. Shri Handa
been mentioned that he had exercised privileges of his was also to make out calls in advance for 200 hours and 500
Aircraft Maintenance Enginees Licence and was engaged hours schedule inspection of aircrafts . He was also
in line scheduled and un - scheduled maintenance , which supposed to upkeep service bulletin in respect of Dornier
inchaded Check A and Check B , inspection schedules upto 228 Aircraft , It was one of the functions of Shri Handa to
4800 hours , installation of new engines , their control rigging, prepare in advance for A check . In the same manner . Shri
ground running, minor rectification and replacement Kundan Sharma is to take care of average fuel consumption
Waring out minor modifications etc. He was also associated graph and engine trained monitoring SOAP analysis record
anh carrying out inspection schedules upto 4800 hours and test record . He usedto issue flight sector report and
36 months on the airframe systems of Dornier 228 naintenance schedules . Maintenance records of delay.
iaft . He last exercised the privileges of his licence on defects and incidents was also one of the duties of Shri
20-12-1999by certification in the Engine Log Book . It has Sharma . Chandrakanta is to update aircraft status on board .
aben mentioned that he had perforined duties of engine Therefore, out of duties detailed above , it is emerging over
and dressing, control rigging , engine ground running, the record that technical officer and technical assistants
testing and tune up of aircraft maintenance inspection , were performing duties , such as inspection and control of
darly inspection of the aircraft and aircraft flying snag aircraft , besides other field work. There is no dispute that
rectification and documentation , aircraft manufacturing of technicians and engineers used to report to Shri Gupta .
wings , fuelflow test etc. It has also been mentioned therein Therefore. above facts give support to deposition of Shri
that the claimant used to report to the Deputy General Singhal wherein he announces that the claimant was
mager (Administration ), while Deputy Manager and carrying out different duties , relating to assuring of quality
ineers used to report to him for duties . control and aircraft engineering manuals , through his
subordinates .
14.10 sceltam whether the claimant was working
io manegerial , administrative or supervisory cadre , 44. Εx . MW1 /1 0 to Ex MW1 /29 project that Shri
dance adduced by the parties is to be scrutinized . At Gupta used to represent the Airlines before the Director
1521
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
claimant was carrying out his technical work ? Answer lies in negative. No evidence has come over the record that the claimant used to perform large part of his technical work himself, with the assistance of his team of 30-40 employees . On the other hand it came over the record that the claimant used to assion duties to his subordinates , who were to perform their duties under his guidance and supervision . The amount of technical work he used to perform was ancillary to his chief duties of assuring quality control through his team of engineers , technical officers and technical assistants . The mere fact that he was required to have technical knowledge for maintenance of an aircraft does not make his work technical work . The work of advising, guiding and removing defects in the work of his subordinates nowhere bring his duties within the pale of technical work . Consequently, there is nothing on record to conclude that his main and substantial duties were technical work which clothe him with the status of a workman.
46. To sum up , principal and main duties of the claimant , as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineers , emerge as follows:
1.The general control and supervision over workers of the department.
2.Allocation and re - allocation of work to the workers .
3. Instructing the workers for issuance of a check A and check B and attending aircraft for pilots acceptance , preparation of reports relating to safety audit and internal audit , make out calls in advance for 200 hours and 500 hours schedule inspection of the aircrafts , upkeep service bulletin in respect of Donier 228 Aircraft , take care of average fuel consumption graph , engine trained monitoring soap analysis record and test record, issue flight sector report and maintenance schedule , maintenance record of delay, defects and incident and update aircraft status on board .
4. Guide the workers as to how the job was to be done and give them necessary directions.
5 Going round and to see how the jobs are being done by the engineers , techinical officers and technical assistants, busides , other workers , inspect the progress made and ensure that repair/maintenance shcedules are adhered to by them .
6.Report on performance of the workers under him to superiors for necessary action.
7. Recommend/ saction of leave to the workers .
8. Represent the Airlines befor Director Gerneral , Civil Aviation , Govt . of India and other institutions .
General, Civil Aviation and other establishments . Ex.MW1 / 19 was written by him to the Director of Airworthiness couting hormit at authorisation of Shri Sanji Malhotra . Antal Maintenance Engineer, may be renewed for a forthet bond of tareesaronths . He has also neationer hadimihai She: R. Sharma. Aircraft Mattenance Engineer wal socrate funsell with Shri Sanjiv Malhotra earing overhaul work ofbreak.removal Dormer. 20 aircraft . Same proposition emerge out of Ex.M Will , where he requested the Director Aitwonniness to extend authorization of Shri H.K Sharma, Arcraft Maintenance Engineer, for further period af sex meaths . Ex.MW1 / 2 was written by hun in respect of Shri M.M. Matta , requesting that nis axthorization to carry ront and cartily change of carbon houshes and testing fuet Hale puñge . Donec 226 Arraß way be extended for MM 14. Ex.M /15 , ex.ΜΜΙ / 16. Ex MM117 Ελ.ΜΜ1/21, EX MM1 /22 and EX.MM1 /23 were written by the claimant to Director of Airworthiness requesting extension of authorization of Shri Matta , Shri S. Reyau . Shri H.R. Sharma and Shri PD. Dhoundiyal frorr. ameto urve . VMMDwonly the clannant to the Director of Anworthiness, when he sent de- nand draft 3000.00جة werds & of tantwal of certificates of authorizaico, ssuedinfavour of engineers and pilots of The Allins Fouroutade Vu Presidend of the Airlines wking him to take ices for procurement ofaltimeter for khmerges Le the cledge wesivanochlor sa teike decisions relating to procurcinent ofalteruter for a reratte , in Ex.MW1 / 18 he taiks of ground bauery cart , which was to be serviced and asked for issuance of cheque of Rs.2720 00 in favour of M/s Super Batteries for procurement of lead acid batteries . Ex.MW1/20 was writen by him for procurement ofvoltmeter. Ex.MW1 / 24 tells that he asked the authorities for issuance ofcheque for Rs.4680 00 in favour of Hindustan Aeronautics sd.. Bangalore towards Soap analysis of Oil/Oil Filter semples. in Ex MW1 / 25 he asks for an advance of 5000.00 . the best pressed to Kanpar in connection with repair of radome . leading edger and verhaul ofKLG (Port )Acgiater Ex.MW 1/26 was written him to M's . Una Aviation Consure ables confirming a urchase order on bet elfof the Airlines . Ex.MW! / 27 was written by him asking for jeenamme afohenue for lis 4281.00. in favour of M/ s . Uma Aviation Comunales He also rcoresented the Airlines before HAL Alicraft Batteries Lianted, flyderabad . ife asked for quotation for hydrostatic testing and recharging of fire extinguisher bottles from the Deputy General Manager Engineering , Air India , Mumbai . These documents bring it over the record that the claimant was representing the Airlines before the Director General , CivilAviation and other establishments . instances, detailed above , make it apparent that the claimant was performing managerial duties for the Anthos .
9. Take decisions for purchase of goods or for repair oftools and equipements .
10. Make suggestions to the Airlines regarding possible imporvement in upkeep and maintenance of aircrafts , tools and equipments.
45 From the dues entrusted to the claimant , it is to be accanained as to whether the main and substantial work hich re door is not ther of sunicory nature . As detailed above, there are 30-40 employees who assist him . Can it be sard that with the assistence of battery of employees , the 1522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4, 1934
[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
2( s) or a particular undertaking is an ' industry' within the meaning of Section of the Act or such industry is a live industry or a closed industry . Such questions can be validly examined and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal as matters incid... ntal to the points of dispute , specified in the order of reference . Therefore , above questions raised by the Airlines . are adjudicated by the Tribunal being incidental to the points specified in the reference order .
50. Since the claimant does not fall within the ambit of the definition of ' workman ' , provisions of the Act are not applicable to him . Secondly , question relating to non- payment of his salary for the months of July August and November 1998 cannot be adiudicated being an indiw.dual dispute . The appropriate Government was not competert to forun an opinion that an industrial dispute existed octween the Airlines and the claimant. When making ofreference is itself incompetent, reference order does not give jurisdiction to this Tribunal to entertain it for adiudication
St Claimant cannot be accorded any relief by this Tribunal . The issues, referred above , do not qualify for adindication. Consequently , this Tribunal refrains its hands frore adjudicaven of the issues An award is passed in favor oftheAirlines and against the claimant . It be sent to the approoriate Government for publication.
47. On analysis of entire facts , it is concluded that in the duites of the claimant . there is a combination of supervisory duties of two types . An Aircraft Maintenance engineer actually supervises work of installation of engine, propeller inspection , contral of aircraft and field works , which is carried on by the engineers /techincians working under him and at the same time he has supervision on those engineers / technicians in the matter of giving directions , recommendation/ sanction of leaves and allocation of work to them . Thus central concept of supervisory duties stood established in the case, since the claimant was responsible to take care of the duties of the aployees working under him . Engineers , technical officer , seci cical assistants and other technicians were not to help har in doing his duties. As energe out of Ex.MW1/ 9 Ratnaal staffof Quality Control Cell was to carry out their daties under his supervision . Therefore , nature of his duties and functions performed by the claimant make it clear that he was a supervisor. It is not a disputed proposition that the claimant was drawing much more wagus than a sum of Rs . 1600.00 per month . Consequently, itis crystal clear that the claimant was performing mainly anar agerial, administrative and supervisory duties . He falls Wadan the ambit of clause (iil ) and ( iv) of the second limb of the fcinition of workman, as enacted under section 2 (s ) of me Act These reasons persuade me to conclude that Shri Gupta was aut a workman within the meaning of Section 2/3) of the Act . The issue is , therefore , answered in favour ofthe Airlines and against the claimant .
Dated: 14-01-2013
Issue No.3 & 4
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 484 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण में 2 अनबाद के पचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2013 को प्राप्त 48. The Tribunal is the creature of the Act , hence its jurisdiction is circumscribed by the Act . Its adjudication must , therefore be confined to the perimeter of the provisions of the Act. As per the scheme of the Act, the Tribunal has to determine the dispute referred to it . Section 10(4) oftheAct permits the Tribunal to decide only disputes or points referred te it and matters incidental thereto. Thus , the Tribuna cannot go beyond the terms of reference . For artculation of an industrial dispute, its adjudication is to be confiered only to :
(a) the points specified in the reference , and
(b) the matters incidenta ! thereto .
सं. एत्न-12012/415 /1999- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2013
S.O. 484. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 75/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 2 No. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Goverment on 31-1-2013.
44 The words ' incidental thereto' occurring in Section 14) of the Act do not have the same meaning as the words' appearing to be connected with or relevant to " used by the legislature in clauses (b ) , ( c) and ( d) ofSection 10 ( 1 ) of the Act . The matters covered by the latter expression must be specifically referred for adjudication while the matter covered by former expression need not be specifically referred or they can be adjudicated upon as a part of the main dispute . For instance , on an industrial dispute being referred to it , the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether on the facts placed before it , an ' industrial dispute' withinthe meaning of Section 2(k) has really arisen , or the concerned persons are ' workmen' as defined in Section
[Ne .L- 12012/415/ 1999 - IR (B- I ) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer 1523
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 200/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
[सं. एल -11011 /4/2008- आई आर ( एम ) ] INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2 , AT DHANBAD
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
Present . SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
New Delhi , the 1st February, 2013
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section (10)
(d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947.
Reference No. 75 OF 2001
Parties : Employer in relation to the management ofState Bank of India , Daltanganj and their workman .
Appearances :
Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. D.K. Verma , the Ld .Adv.
On the behalf of the management: Mr. S.N. Goswami Ld.
Adv.
S.O. 485. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 200 / 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s International Airport Authority of India (Delhi) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2013 .
Jharkhand Industry : Banking
State :
[No. L-11011 /4/2008 - IR (M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
Dated , Dhanbad , the 17th Dec , 2012.
ANNEXURE
AWARD
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.1 , DELHI
I.D.No.200/2011
The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1) (d) of the 1. D. Act . 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicaation vide thier Order No. L-12012/415/ 1999 / IR( B - 1 ) dt . 9-3-2001 .
TheGeneral Secretary,
SCHEDULE
AirportAuthority Karamchari Union .
RZF - 1 /227 , Gali No.2, Workman
Mahabir Enclave ,
New Delhi - 110015.
Versus
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Daltonganj in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 1-6-1997 who was engaged to supply water to Bank Staff is justified ? If not , what relief is he entitled?"
Management
The Chairman .
International Airport Authority of India ,
IGI Airport , New Delhi .
AWARD
2. Mr. D. K. Verma, the Learned Advocate for the workman is present, but workman Sri Ashok Kumar is absent as usual . Mr. Verma submits for the closure of the case of the workman . as the workman is uninterested in pursuing the case . Mr. S. N. Goswami the Ld . Advocate for the management is present.
Airport Authority of India ( in short the Authority) came into existence by way of merger of International Airports Authority of India and National Airports Authority, after enactment of the Airports Authority of India Act 1994 by theParliament .
After going through the case record, I find the case has been pending for the evidence of the workman since 9-6-2004, for which more than sufficient opportunities were given to his for his evidence, but the workman by his conduct factually seems uninterested in prusuing the case for final adjudication under these circumstances , the Reference Case of the workman related to an issue of termination of his serivce w.e. f. 1-6-1997 is closed , and accordingly it is passed as Award that the Industrial Dispute no longer exists.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
२दिल्ली, । फरवरी , 2013
2. Employees working in maintenance and construction of runways , buildings and civil / electrical work were paid overtime wages under Factories Act . 1948 and the Minimum Wages Act . 1948 ( in short the Act ) . Central Government has fixed minimum rates of wages, vide notification dated 14-10-1988 , for employees employed in maintenance of buildings , construction and maintenance of roads or any building operations . Employees of the Authority, employed in civil and electrical maintenance . involving construction and maintenance of building and runways , were drawing overtime allowance under the Act and Minimum Wages ( Central ) , Rules 1950 ( in short the Rules) . There were certain disputes and difference between the Authority and its employees , relating to payment of का.आ. 485. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इन्टरनेशनल एअरपोर्ट अथोरिटी आफ इंडिया दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम नयायालय नं. 1 .
1524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
overtime allowance . The Authority entered into a settlement
with the majority Union and thereafter it issued circular on deputation from Civil Aviation Department and Central
17-01-1994 which details rates of payment of overtime Public Works Department, who were subsequently
allowance , relevant portion of which is extracted thus: abserhood in the service of National Airports Authority of
India. Employees who were working as work charged staff
"The release of pay in the revised scale ofpay under with CPWD for maintenance and construction of runways
new wage agreement will be subject to adjustments if and buildings as well as civil and electrical works , were
needed on final scrutiny and would be purely provisiona! effert absorbed with National Airport Authority of India with
and overtime payments from the north of December, 1993 C.-09-1997 , on the same terms and conditions
wards shall be regulated at that hourly rates restricted as cotaited awd to the CPWD . Employees of CPWD
to what were applicable in respect ofeach employee in the were being paid overtime wages under Factory Act, 1948
month of December 1993. In other words till such time and the Act . Same provisions of law were made applicable
discussions are held with the unions to find ways and to them by the National Airport Authority of India .
means to removing anomalies /disparity to the extent Employees recruited by the National Airport Authority of
possible , overtime shall be paid at the rates at which they India, for maintenance and construction of runways and
were earlier paid in the month of November 1993. The buildings and civil and electric work , were treated at par
Authority entered into a settlement on 17-01-1995 with with the employees who were drawn from CPWD .
Airport Authority of India Workers' Union where efforts
were made to reduce the overtime allowance available to 5. The Union pleads that the Act provides for fixation
employee working in scheduled employments ". of minimuon rates of wages in certain scheduled
стріовень . Government has lived mimaan rates of
3.Aggrieved by the circular, a few employees tiled a wage for scheduled employments in maintenance of
wht petition being C.W.P. No. 994 of 1994 , wherein it was building, construction or maintenance of road or building
cipimed that reduction of overtime allowance was illegal . operations , vide notification date 14-10-1988 . Members of
During the pendency of the writ petition , settlement dated the Union are employed in scheduled employment viz . in
17-1-95 was entered into between the majority union and civil and electrical maintenance , involving construction and
theAuthority. Copy of the said settlement was also placed ma.ntcoure of building and runways , maintenance and
before the High Court of Delhi . The High Courtdismissed of ensifichase of ervil zerodrome , which are main functions
the writ petition vide its order dated 22-08-2005 with liberty of the Authority . Members of the Union are entitledto
to raise an industrial dispute challenging circular dated double rate of wages for overtime work performed on rest
17-01-1994 and settlement dated 17-01-1995 . The Airport days, in addition to substituted day of rest . Since there
Darbority Karamchari Umon ( in short the Union ) raised a were disputes and differences betyder the Union and the
dispute before the Conciliation Officer in the year 2008 . authorities with regard to wages and the Authority wanted
Since the Authority gave contest to its claim , conciliation to reduce overtime allowance at any cost , it entered into a
proceedings ended into a failure On consideration of failure settlement with Airport Antherity of India Workers Union.
report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer , appropriate The stid
the Aulite in me had mabilely acco-operate with
Governmentreferred the dispute for adjudication to Central expenses. Op
Liow woment industrial Trubuna ! Neil,New Delhi , vidz order 17-01-1994, the Authorby tsudlar educ
NL -11011 /4/2008 - IR( M ) , New Delhi dated 09-04-2009 with payment of oyuncalier waschallerged
fell wingterms before the court Deha als of a writ petition .
"Whether the action of the management of Airport During pendancy of the writ petition, the Authority entered
Authority of India in not providing overtime allowance at into a seulement with Airpon Authony of India Workers
Union on 17-01-1995 which settlement reduced rates of
tae rate ordouble the ordinary rate is just and fair? To what overtime allowance to the members of the Union. Though
reef the union is entitled?"
the settlement was placed before the gh Court , yet writ
4. Claim statement was filed by the Union pleading petitionwas dismissed on 22-08-2005 . The Union projects
that it is a registered trade union and functions for welfare that it assails circular 17-01-1994 and settlement dated
and interest of employees of the Authority . Shri 17-01-1995 being illegal , since they violate provisions of
Ghanshyam , General Secretary , has been authorized by the the Act . Rule 25 of the Rules provides that when a worker
Union to file claim. Authority came into existence by way works for more than 9 hours in any day or for more than 48
of merger of Internal Airports Authority of India and the hours in any week in scheduled employment , he shall be
National Airports Authority . As per provisions of Section paid at double the ordinary rates of wages for overtime
12(2 ) ( e ) of the Airport Authority of India Act , 1994, work . Provisions of Section 25 of the Act makes any
employees holding any office under Central Government contract or agreement void in so far it purports to reduce or
at International Airports immediately before formation of relinquish right to minimum rates of wages or any privilege
National Airports Authority of India were treated on or any concessions applicable to an employee . Since the
aforesaid circular and settlement everride provisions of
1525
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
the Act and the Rules hence are void . Settlement dated 17-01-1995 is not applicable and binding on members of the Union. The said settlement is also illegal and perverse , since order dated 09-03-1992 passed by the Authority under the Act was not taken into consideration . It has been claimed that the aforesaid circular and settlement may be declared illegal and members of the Union be held entitled for payment ofovertime at double the ordinary rate ofwages with retrospective effect .
6. Claim was demurred by the Authority pleading that the dispute raised qua circular 17-01-1994 and settlement dated 17-01-1995 , entered into between the Authority and the recognised union , is not an industrial dispute .Members of the Union are governed by scales of pay,which scales of pay are better than those applicable to the employees of Government of India . Besides pay and overtime allowance , member of the Union are receiving perquisites such as food subsidy, transport subsidy, children education allowance , uniform and washing allowance etc. They are also paid for rest days whereas under the provisions of Schedule (4 ) of rule 23 ofthe Rules , no wages are payable if actual daily rate of wages are more than the notified minimum rates of wages . The Authority has control of five national airports at Delhi , Mumbai , Chennai , Kolkata and Thiruvananthapuram. National Airport Authority of India made its own rules and regulations relating to service conditions of its employees . It is not disputed that staff working with CPWD was absorbed in erstwhile National Airport Authority of India on 01-09-1977 . They were paid wages and salary on IDA pattern and not minimum wages . Notification dated 14-10-1988 , fixing minimum rates ofwages , is not applicable to the employees of the Authority . The Authority primarily functions for efficient management of international airports . It works under the Government of India in a manner analogous to actions carried out by other departments . Claim of the Union that employees engaged in maintenance of buildings & runways are working in scheduled employments , is unfounded. Scheduled employments relating to maintenance of building & runways would imply to agencies engaged in whole time activity of maintenance of buildings . Agencies which are engaged in civil engineering activities of construction as well as maintenance of runways would fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Act. The Authority, though responsible for construction and maintenance of runways , yet awards work for actual construction and major maintenance to outside civil engineering companies and contractors and such companies and contractors would be bound by the provisions of the Act .
wage settlement was signed, which was effective for a period of four years form 01-09-1989 . As per the settlement , recognized union agreed to co-operate to minimise overtime expenses and other staff costs . It was also agreed that no arrears of overtime allowance shall be payable , for the period prior to the month of signing of the final agreement, after receipt of approval of Government of India . In memorandum of understanding, relating to final agreement of wage settlement entered into between the Authority and the recognized union for the period 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1996 , it was agreed that the union would co - operate with the Authority in minimising overtime expenditure and other staff costs . Recognized union , while entering into an agreement relating to wage structure for the period 1-1-1997 to 31-12-2006 , agreed for reduction of overtime expenses to the tune of 2%. It was also agreed that overtime allowance payment shall be restricted to operational staff and that too only for unavoidable circumstances . Deployment of non - operational staff on overtime assignment was to be done with prior approval of the Competent Authority. A committee, consisting ofOfficers from Engineering , Personnel and Operations Department, wasconstituted to go into the question of rationalisation ofovertime allowance to the staff. The committee submitted itsreport on 17-02-1984.
8. The Authority highlights that wage settlement for the period with effect from 01-09-1989 was signed on 17-12-1993 between the Authority and the recognized union , namely, International Airports Authority of India Workers Union and International Airport Authority of India (Headquarters ) Employees Union . Administrative order for implementation of that wage agreement was issued on 14-12-1993 . It was decided that no arrears of overtime allowance , travelling allowance , dearness allowance and other allowances shall be payable for the period prior to the month of signing of the final settlement . The said settlement was equally applicable to staff irrespective of their posting in electrical & civil maintenance , motor transport , electronics , fire operations etc. To evolve uniform rate of overtime allowance , the Authority entered into a tripartite agreement during conciliation proceedings on 17-01-1995 . Settlement decided uniform rates of overtime allowance to the employees in all cadres , viz . ministerial, operational , maintenance etc. Settlement dated 17-01-1994 was outcome of wage settlement signed on 13-12-1993 . Provisions ofAct are not applicable to the Authority. The Union cannot claim that the aforesaid circular, being executive order, seeks to over - ride provisions of the Act . The Authority is an organization engaged in work of providing services and facilities to national airports . Entire gamut of its activities are being controlled and carried out by sophisticated and modern equipments and, therefore, normal duty hours of the employees include large period of inaction during which they are on duty but not called upon either to display physical activity or to give sustained 7. The Authority fürther pleads that multiplicity of unions are not encouragedby it. Accordingly, elections are held at regular intervals to elect majority union so as to discuss service issues relating to its employees with that union . Wage Negotiation Committee was constituted and
5376 /13-26 1526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
uniform allowance . Canteen subsidy, conveyance allowance and home loans as well as vehicle loan are available to them . LTC facilities are also available . He concedes that ail facilities detailed in circulars Ex . WW14 and Ex . WW1/ 5 are given to them by the Authority.
'stformance They remain in wait for any exigency or an trgency Since provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Authority, hence it cannot be said that those provisions are contracted out . The Union cannot assail settlement arrived at during the course of settlement proceedings with the majority union . Since members of the Union are being paid in excess of notified minimum wages and are paid for rest days also , they are not covered by the Act . Claim put forward by the Union is liable to be dismissed, heing devoid of merits , claims the Authority.
9.Vide order No.Z -2219/6/2007- IR(C- II ), New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 , case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government .
10. Shri Ghanshyam Singh entered the witness box to unfold facts on behalf of the Union . Shri Sushil Kumar, Senior Manager , testified facts on behalf of the Authority. No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
14. Shri Sushil Kumar unfolds in his affidavit Ex.MWI /A . tendered as evidence , that the Union cannot challenge the settlement , arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings , since it is binding on them. The Union is an unrecognised union and the settlement was entered into between the Authority and the recognized union. In the settlement, the recognized union has agreed to rationalise overtime rates of Wages . Circular dated 17-01-1994 was an outcome of the wage settlement signed on 13-12-1993 between the Authority and the recognized union . The Union cannot question the settlement as well as circular. He declares that the jobs , which the Authority carries out , do not fall within the scheduled employment , provided by the Act . During course of cross examination . he feigned ignorance that in December' 94, overtime wages were paid on two standards , viz . at single rate and double the ordinary rates of wages . He also feigned ignorance that the employees working in civil and electrical maintenance division were getting overtime allowance at double the ordinary wages .
11. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri K.Κ. Aggarwal , authorized representative , advanced argument on behalf of the Union . Ms.Sujata Kashyap, authorised representative, presented facts on behalf of the Authority. Parties filed their written submissions too. I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-
12. Shri Ghanyshyam Singh swears in his affidavit Ex WWI /A, tendered as evidence , that the Authority recruited employees for maintenance and construction of runways and buildings and civil and electrical work . Overtime allowance was paid to those employees under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Act. Letter dated 29-11-78 which is Ex .WW1 / 3 , makes it apparent that engineering staff deployed in electrical maintenance division , maintenance staff deployed in motor transpot workshop , maintenance staff engaged in electronics workshop, staff employed in construction and maintenance of buildings and runways were to be paid overtime wages under the Factories Act , 1948.
15. Out of facts , unfolded by Shri Ghanshyam Singh and those detailed by Shri Sushil Kumar, it emerge over the record that the wage settlement was entered into between theAuthority and the recognized union on 13-12-1993 . In pursuance of the said wage settlement , circular dated 17-01-1994 was issued . In the said circular, it was provided thatovertime payments from December 1993 were to be regulated at hourly rates , restricted to rates applicable for November , 1993. It creaps out that overtime allowance was tobe paid at rates on which employees were paid for the month of November'93 . This circular is assailed being violative of provisions of the Factories Act , 1948 and the Act. In 1995, the Authority and the recognized union entered into a settlement , during the course of conciliation proceedings , wherein it was settled that new rate of overtime allowance shall be effective from 01-01-1995 . Rate of overtime allowance so settled , are detailed hereunder :
"Auniform rate of overtime will be applicable to all employees who are entitled to overtime allowance performing same / similar hours of work in a week irrespective of department or cadre , viz . ministerial , operational, maintenance etc. The mode of calculation of rates of overtime allowance shall be as under :
2.2.1 For those performing 48 hours ofduty in a week
Pay + FDA + VDA x 1.7 208
2.2.2 For those performing less than 48 hours duty in a week
13. Wage settlement has been proved by him as EX.WW1/4 . He unfolds that on 17-01-1994 a circular was issued by the Authority regulating payment of overtime allowance on hourly rate, restricted to rates applicableto the employees in November 1993. The said circular changes rates of overtime allowance in contravention to the Rules . TheAuthority entered into a settlement dated 17-01-1995, which is against the provisions of the Act . During course of his cross examination , he concedes that wages are paid by the Authority to its employees on industrial dearness allowance pattern . They are paid wages for weekly off days and gazetted holidays also . Earned leaves and casual leaves are also given to them. Arremployee can also encash half pay leaves at the time of his retirement. Medical bill reimbursement was available till 2009. He was also getting 1527
भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Pay + FDA + VDA x 1.5 208
*Average number of hours performed per month worked out on the following basis :
48 x 52
Weekly hours x number ofweeks
12
208
number of months
all facilities and privileges applicable to the Government servants . In such a situation , question would be as to whether member of the union are entitled to overtime allowance under the provisions of the Act , in view of provisions of Section 14 of the said Act . Such a proposition came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation , Hatta [ 1998 (79 ) FLR 228 ] . The Apex Courttook note of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and ruled that to claim overtime under section 14 , followings conditions must be fulfilled by an employee:
(1) the minimum rate of wages should be fixed under the minimum Wages Act , 1948 ; and
Common denominator has been retained in the above two cases since those doing lesser working hours in a week could not be placed in an advantageous position thanthose rendering higher number of working hours in a week.
(2) such an employee should work on any day in excess of the number of hours , constituting a normal workingday.
2.2.3 Overtime allowance is payable for the duty performed beyond prescribed hours of duty.
2.2.4 The maximum rate of overtime allowance shall be restricted at Rs.45.00 per hour even if the amount calculated under para 2.2 (2.2.1 and 2.2.2 ) above exceeds this limit . "
The Court ruled that overtime under section 14 is payable to those employees who are getting a minimum rate of wage, as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. These are the only employees to whom overtime under section 14 would become payable . The Apex Court announced that in the present case the respondents cannot be described as employees who are getting minimum rate ofwages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. They are getting much more and that too under the Madhya PradeshMunicipal Service (Scales of Pay and Allowances) Rules , 1967 Resultantly Section 14 has no application to them.
16. The Union challenged circular as well as settlement referred above , being violative ofthe provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Act . As conceded by Shri Ghanshyam Singh , members of the Union are being paid wages as per wage structure based on industrial dearness allowance pattern since 1977. Members of the Union never raised an eyebrow when they were paid their wages on industrial dearness allowance pattern since September 1977. They are being paid for weekly offdays , gazetted holidays , earned leaves and casual leaves . They can encash their earned leaves as well as half pay leaves at the time of their superannuation . Medical reimbursement facilities , uniform allowance, canteen subsidy, conveyance allowance , home loans and conveyance loans are also available to them . LTC facility or a sum of Rs.900.00 per month in lieu thereof is given to them. All facilities detailed in circular Ex . WW1 /4 and Ex. WW1 /5 are being accorded to the members of the Union .
18. The Apex Court also took note ofthe proposition that the employment of the respondents was under " any local authority " , listed as item 6 in the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 , according to which they are entitled and automatically get overtime under section 14 of the saidAct . Considering that proposition , the Court ruled that the employees who are getting minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 are only eligible to get over time allowance under section 14 of the saidAct . Observations made by the Apex Court in that regard are extracted thus:
"The application under section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act , is , therefore , misconceived. The respondents seem to have proceeded on the basis that because employment under any Local Authority is listed as Item 6 in the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 they would automatically get overtime under the said Act . Section 14 , however, clearly provides for payment of overtime only tothose employees who are getting minimum rate ofwage under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It does not apply to those getting better wages ander other statutory Rules ."
19. The Union had placed reliance on the precedent in Y.A. Mamad25)1972ع ( FLR 1861 wherein the Apex Court had dealt wich provisions of rule 25 ofthe Rules and declared that the expression ' ordinary rate of wages ' used 17. Question for consideration is as to whether provisions of the Act are applicable tothe staff deployed in electrical and civil maintenance , motor transport, electronics , fire operations and maintenance of buildings and runways , since works in these units are notified to be scheduled employment under the Act. Admittedly, members ofthe union are getting wages under pay structure settled between the Authority and recognized union . They are getting pay under industrial dearness allowance pattern. Wages for weekly off days , encashment of earned leave, casual leave , gazetted holidays , encashment of half pay leaves at the time of superannuation , canteen subsidy, uniform allowance , medical reimbursement facility, home loan and transport vehicle loan are also available to them. Therefore , it is evident that not only pay under a wage structure is given to the members of the union but they get 1528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )
in that rule reflects what a workman has actually received rather than worker's minimum entitlement under the Act . By using the phrase " double the ordinary rate of wages " the rule-making authority seems to us to have intended that the worker should be the recipient of double remuneration which he , in fact , ordinarily receives and not double the rate of minimum wages fixed for him under the Act. Ithas been commanded by the Apex Court that rule 25 of the Rules contemplates for overtime payment at double the rate of wages which the worker actually receives , including the casual perquisites and other advantages mentioned in the explanation. This rate is intended to be the minimum rate for wages for overtime work . It was concluded therein that the minimum rates of wages for overtime work need not as a matter of law be confined to double the minimum wages fixed but mayjustly be fixed at double the wages ordinarily received by that workman as a fact.
20. Whether there is any conflict in law laid in precedent in YA Mamarde ( supra) and Municipal Council , Hatta ( supra) ? When these two precedents are scanned , it emerges that in YA Mamarde ( supra) , the Apex Court only interpreted rule 25 of the Rules and did not deal with provisions of Section 14 of the Act . On the other hand , precedent in Municipal Council Hatta, the Apex Court interpreted the provisions of section 14 of the Minimum WagesAct , 1948. Consequently, it is clear that there is no conflict in the above two judgements handed down by the Apex Court . In Sushil Kumar, ( LPA No. 13 of2003 decided on 03-12-2003 ) High Court of Delhi was confronted with such a proposition when parties raised an issue to the effect that there was conflict in law laid in the two precedents handed down by the Apex Court . On consideration ofthe ratio laid down in the two precedents, the High Court ruled thatthere was no conflict in the two judgements since they operated in different areas . Hence law laid in Municipal Council , Hatta ( supra) would be applicable to the case , since it has four dimensional application to the facts.
inscheduled employment but drawing more than minimum wages and enjoying better terms of employment than under the Act and the Rules, being not entitled to overtime at double the rate as provided in the Rules . The Minimum Wages Act , 1948 was only intended to secure minimum wages and certain other conditions in scheduled employment . It was not intended to and/or is not a legislation to otherwise govern the contract of employment between an employer and an employce drawing more than the minimum wages , even in scheduled employment . If an employee in a scheduled employment is drawing more than the notified minimum wages and enjoying amenities , facilities and conditions of employment better than those provided under the Act and the Rules , then holding the provisions of the Act to be still applicable to the employee would tantamount to the legislature interfering in terms of employment in the scheduled industry rather than securing minimum wages and related conditions of employment in such employment . The Supreme Court in Beed District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2006 ( 8 ) SCC 514 ] held that even while interpreting a beneficent statute ( in that case the Payment of Gratuity Act) either a contract has to be given effect to or the statute . It was held that the Gratuity Act under consideration in that case, did not contemplate that the workmen would be atliberty to opt for better terms of the contract while keeping the option open in respect of a part of the statute; he has to opt for either of them and not the best of the terms of statute as well as those of the W.P. (C) No.2146/ 1992 Page 9 of 11 contract and that he cannot have both . A reading of the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 also shows that its scheme is to ensure fixing of hours of work and minimum wages there- for. It also does not envisage interference with the terms of employment even in scheduled establishments where workmen/ employees are enjoying wages more than the minimum and working hours/ conditions better than those prescribed in the Act . Section 14 of the Act provides for work over and above the time for which the workman is towork in lieu of minimum wages . Ifthe workman is working forlesser hours than those for which he is required to work to earn the minimum wage, then the computation of overtime as done in the Rules on the said premise cannot be made applicable to him.
22. As projected above , Shri Ghanshyam Singh concedes that the members of the Union are getting wages and amenities better than those fixed under the provisions of the Act . When above law is applied to the facts , it is to be concluded that member of the Union cannot claim over time allowance in consonance with rule 25 of the Rules . Their contention to the effect that precedent in Manmarde (supra) rules the field, is discarded.
21. In National Airport Authority ( 2010 ( 127) FLR 111 ] , Single Judge of the High Court was to consider the proposition whether 74 workers drawing more than the notified minimum wages and enjoying other amenities and conditions ofemployment better than those provided under the Act and Rule's were entitled to payment of overtime rates in accordance with the provisions of rule 25 of the Rules. Relying the precedent in Municipal Council , Hatta (supra) , High Court ruled that an employee even if in scheduled employment but drawing more than minimum wages and enjoying better terms of employment than under theAct and Rules , is not entitled to overtime at double the rate as provided under the Rule . Law laid down by the HighCourt is reproduced thus:
23. The Union projects that settlement dated 17-01-1995 was entered into between the Authority and the recognised Union, which contracts out provisions of Section 25 of the Act . It is agitated that the said settlement "I may however state my reasons for preferring the view in Municipal Council , Hatta , of the employee even if 1529
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
is to be discarded since it is violative ofthe law. Ms.Sujata Kashyap dispels submissions made by Shri Aggarwal in thai regard . For an answer to the proposition raised, it is expedient to have a glance on provisions of Section 25 of the Act , which are extracted thus:
"25. Contracting out Any contract or agreement , whether made before or after the commencement of this Act , whereby an employee either relinquishes or reduces his right to a minimum rate of wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under this Act shall be null and void in so far as it purports to reduce the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act . "
24. Provisions of Section 25 of the Act were construed in Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weaver Co - operative Society case ( 1985 Lab.I.C. 767). The High Court ruled therein that provisions of Section 25 of the Act make it clear that an agreement cannot be a bar to determine correct minimum wage under the Act. Law laid down by the High Court is extracted thus:
it is true that the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act make it clear that agreement cannot be a bar to determine correct minimum wage under the Act . The Question here is not one of bar under Section 25 of the Act . Question is whether agreement dated 29-09-1966 was to the bar for entertaining the claim . It is not contended at any stage that the agreement over rides minimum wage prescribed by the government orders since the workman candidly admittedthat wages paid to them by the petitioner is not less than the minimum wages prescribed by the Act . That being so, question of bar and relinquishment for the purposeose of Section 25 of the Act does not, in my opinion , arise" .
25. In the aforesaid case , Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed minimum wages for the scheduled employment relevant to the controversy therein , vide orders dated 16-06-1976 and 05-02-1976 . Minimum wages prescribed by the Government were prejudicial to the workmen because they were being paid more than minimum wages except for weft and therefore workmen and the employer approached Government and with its assistance , an agreement was arrived at between the employer and the workman fixing rates of wages which were not less than minimum wages except for weft and overall payment to the workmen was more than minimum wage . While considering the case , High Court ruled that the agreement did not override the Government orders prescribing the minimum wages under the Act. Hence it was concluded therein that Scrion 25 of the Act would not operate as a bar for considering and giving effect to the agreement and simply because wages for Weft under the agreement fell short of the minimum wages prescribed by the Government orders , troll wages paid by the employer in accordance with the agreement cannot be discarded under Section 25 of the Act .
26.Here in the case too, it is an admitted proposition thatmembers of the Union were being paid wages under industrial dearness allowance pattern , which were higher than the minimum wages prescribed under the scheduled employment in which they work. They also get other facilities like reimbursement of medical bills , uniform allowance , canteen subsidy, conveyance allowance , home loans , conveyance loans LTC facility or a sum of Rs.900.00 per month in lieu thereof. Consequently, it emerged over the record that the settlement on the strength of which wages higher than minimum wages were prescribed , does not override minimum wages . It cannot be said that the said settlement is violative of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act . Contention advanced by Shri Aggarwal is discarded on that count too .
27.Admittedly, settlement dated 17-01-95 was arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings . It was signed by the Authority and the recognised union . Whether the said settlement is binding on the members of the Union ? Answer can be traced out of the provisions of Section 18 (3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , which provisions stipulate that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings , which has become enforccable , shall be binding on all the parties specified in clauses ( a) , ( b ) , ( c) and ( d ) of the said sub - section . When a settlement is arrived at under Section 18 (3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, it will be binding on all the workmen of the establishment . If thatbe so , what is the effect of a settlement unions entered into by the management with one of the union representing the majority of the workmen employed by the management and concerned in the dispute? Would that settlement bind the other union and workmen of the establishment ? When an establishment has more than one Union and there is trade union rivalry, possibility of those unions entering in to negotiation in respect of certain demands cannot be ruled out . It also happens that negotiations with one union in the course of conciliation proceedings may succeeded and end in a settlement . While answering the question asto whether the settlement would bind the workman of other union , the Apex Court held in Ramnagar Cane and SugerCo. Ltd. [1961 ( 1 ) LLJ 244 ] that such a settlement will bind the workmen of other union . Such a question came up for consideration in Buckingam and Carnatic Co. [ 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 253 ] before Madras High Court . The point for consideration in that case was whether the employees union , the petitioner in that case , was competent to raise an industrial dispute in respect of a matter which was settled by a conciliation settlement by the management with another union recognized by the management . After referring to thedecision ofthe Apex Court in Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. ( supra ) the High Court came to the conclusion that it was open to the management to enter into a settlement with the Union representing the majority of workmen and that such a settlement . will bind the other union as well as 1530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
other workmen who were in employment or subsequently came in employment in the establishment.
28. A settlement arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings between the management and the Union stand or different footing than the settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings . For an example , if an industrial establishment has two union, say " A" and " B " , an agreement otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings between the management and workers of Union " A" will be binding on the management and workers of Union " A" only. But a settlement " arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings " will be binding on all the members of the other union who were not parties to the agreement as well as by virtue of Section 18 (3 )( d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. See Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Employees Union [1984 ( 1 ) LLJ 349] .
29. Applying above law it is concluded that the settlement dated 17-1-95 binds the members of the Union as well . The Union cannot question the settlement . In view of the forgoing reasons , claim put forward by the Union cannot be allowed. There is no substance in the proposition thatovertime allowance should be granted to the members of Union in pursuance of the provisions of Section 14 of theAct. Consequently, claim is brushed aside . An award is passed in favour of the Authority and against the Union . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated: 7-12-2012
Dr. R. K. Yadav, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 486 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स प्रताप स्वाईन एण्ड ऐसोसिएट ठेकेदार एच. पी. सी. एल. , उड़ीसा के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या60/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/6/2012- आई आर ( एम ) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 1st February, 2013
S.O. 486 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/ 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Pratap
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]
Swain & Associates , Contractor of HPCL ( Orissa ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2013 .
[No. L- 30012/6/2012 - IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR , COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri J. Srivastava , PresidingOfficer , C.G.I.T. -cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar .
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 60/2012 Date of Passing Order - 15th January, 2013
Between:
... Ist Party- Management M/ s . Pratap Swain & Associates , Contractor of HPCL Bottling Plant , Jatni , Dist. Khurda , Orissa . And The Secretary, IOC & HPCL Drivers & Employees Union , At . Chhanaganaghar, P.O. Kusumati , Via: Jatni , Dist. Khurda, Orissa .
..... 2nd Party -Union
Appearances:
None
None
For the Ist Party- Management . For the 2nd Party- Union .
ORDER
Case taken up today. Both the parties are absent . The 2nd Party - Union has still not filed statement of claim despite sending notice through registered post on 7-11-2012. Earlier to it while sending copy of the order of reference to the 2nd Party -Union the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has directed the parties raising the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents and list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference, but ignoring that order and notice sent by this Tribunal the 2nd Party -Union has failed to file any statement of claim even after lapse of a period of more than six months from the date of receipt of the reference in this Tribunal . It would therefore , be a wanton effort to keep the case pending indefinitely without any purpose . It might be that the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the court or the Union might not be interested to proceed further with the case . Therefore no useful purpose would be served in keeping the case pending any longer. The reference is liable to be returned to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour with no dispute award.
Accordingly no dispute award is passed.
J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer 1531 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23, 2013/फाल्गुन 4 , 1934
[भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 487.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई टी-1/ 20 आफ/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12011 /09/2011- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 1st February, 2013
following reasons : (a) drivers were not the employees of the Bank ( b) There were no vacancies available for absorption (c) Part time sweeper who in fact were the regular employees of the Bank were entitled for preference. (d) The Bank overlooked the claim of the part time sweepers for absorption with a view to favour personal drivers of its executives . (e) The vacancies were not notified to the employment exchange . Thus the act of the management in appointing personal drivers of the executives as permanent peons ofthe Bank pursuant to the decision dt . 30-8-2008 is arbitrary, unauthorized , unjustified and illegal . Ifrecruitment of personal drivers as peons is held illegal then the part time sweepers got the benefit of full employment w.e.f. 30-8-2008 and not 1-4-2012 on which date the part time sweepers were appointed as full time peons .
S.O. 487.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1 / 20 of2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013 .
[No. L - 12011/09/2011 - IR ( B- II) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , MUMBAI
Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1 /20 of 2011
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India.
And
Their Workmen
Appearances :
: Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Adv.
For the Management
For the Union
: Mr. Anil Kumar Menon , Adv.
:
: Maharashtra
State
Mumbai , dated the 11th day of January, 2013 .
AWARD
According to the written statement the Bank is providing cars to its executives . These executives are not provided with drivers but are allowed to engage persons of their choice as their personal drivers . The respective executive pays the salary to the personal driver engaged by him and subject to the ceiling the bank reimburses the same to the executive . Such personal drivers of the executives repeatedly requested to absorb them in regular service ofthe Bank . In view of this , absorption of personal drivers in the regular service was considered and a Memorandum dated 23-8-2008 came to be addressed to Board and the matter came to be placed before the Board of Directors of the Bank vide Agenda item no . 36 on 30-8-2008 . The proposal was considered by the Board of Directors on the same day and after the receipt of approval of the proposal personal drivers came to be absorbed by the Bank in a phased manner . There were vacancies for the post of peons and since these personal drivers fulfilled the criteria stipulated for the said posts they were absorbed as per the requirement of the Bank. The recruitment process followed by the Bank was valid and there was no back door entry. Personal drivers of the executives worked for several years continuously prior to their absorption in the regular service of the Bank and only after approval by the Board of Directors they were absorbed. Hence action of the Bank is perfectly legal and authorised . A Settlement dated 1-4-2011 to convert part time sweepers into fuil time sweepers was arrived at after discussions and negotiations withthe All India Union Bank Employees Association . The Bank has denied that the part time sweepers are entitled to the benefit of full time employment with effect from 30-8-2008 .
In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
The Union Bank Karmachari Sena has filed affidavit of its Secretary Rajesh Matkari who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the Bank and the Bank has filed affidavit of Mrs. Padma Neelakanthan , Chief Manager ( P ) who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the Union Bank Karmachari Sena .
Whether the recruitment of personal drivers of executive of the bank as ' Peons ' legal ? What benefit thepart-time sweepers are entitled to ?
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Menon, on behalf of Union , Bank Karmachari Sena and Mrs. P.S. Shetty, on behalf of the Bank.
According to the statement of claim the alleged absorption of drivers as peons by the Bank is illegal for the F. NO. 537GI - 8 MSS . 602-649
PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4. 1934
1532
New Delhi , the 1st February , 2013 The schedule contains the following two issues:
( 1 ) Whether the recruitment of personal drivers of executives of the Bank as peons is legal ?
(2) What benefit the part time sweepers are entitled to?
S.O. 488. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. L.D.74 2012 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Chennai Port Trust and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013.
[No. 1. -33012/ 01 /2011 - IR ( B - 11) |
SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 17th January, 2013 As regards issue no. I learned counsel for Union Bank Karmachari Sena has not been able to show as to which statutory rule has been flouted or violated . It is also ridiculous to suggest that personal drivers could be appointed or absorbed as drivers only and not as peons because there is no rule which requires that a person to be appointed as a peon should not know driving . Personal drivers have been appointed or absorbed as peons in pursuance of the approval given by the Board of Directors of the Bank . There is no allegation of discriminatory or unfair practice by the Bank . There is nothing on the record to render illegal the recruitment of personal drivers of executives as peons .
Present :
A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 74/2012
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . between the, Management of Chennai Port Trust and their Workmen]
Between:
Smt. M. Kasturi
.... Ist Party/Petitioner
Vs.
The Chairman
.... 2nd Party/ Respondent
Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai . Chennai - 600001
This reference has been made on 13-6-2011 whereas part time sweepers were made full time peons w.e.f. 1-4-2011 as such there was no part time sweeper on 13-6-2011 . Moreover Union Bank Karmachari Sena witness Rajesh Matkari who is General Secretary of the Sena has admitted in his cross - examination that the issue of part time and full time sweepers to be made permanent was raised by them in 2010 only. In such a situation how the part time sweepers now can claim the full time permanent employment benefits from 30-8-2008 . Apart from this the part time sweepers were given the benefit of full time employmentw.e.f. 1-4-2011 in pursuance to the Settlement dt.25-3-2011 arrived at and signed by the Bank and the All India Union Bank Employees Association . How the issue can be agitated at this stage against the mandate of the Settlement ? For these reasons the part time sweepers are not entitled to any benefits .
Appearance :
Sri A. Meenakshi Sundaram , Advocate
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
Itis , therefore, held that the recruitment of personal drivers of executives of the Bank as peons cannot be said to be illegal and the part time sweepers are not entitled to any benefit .
Sri M.R. Dharanichander , Advocate
For the 2nd Party/ Management
Award is passed accordingly.
AWARD
JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, । फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 488 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 33012 / 1 /2011 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 18-09-2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Chennai PortTrust , Chennai in dismissing Smt . M. Kasturi , Ex-Peon from service 22-03-2006 is legal and justified? Whatextent the workman is entitled to relief ? " का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 74/2012 and issued notices to both sides . First party entered appearance and filed Claim Statement . Second party entered appearance through [सं. एल -33012/01 /2011- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी 1533 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
counsel and thereafter remained absent in spite of several adjournments given and is therefore eventually called absent and set ex - parte .
3. The contentions raised in the Claim Statement briefly read as follows:
illegal and prejudicial in manifold ways to the workman . The workman whose cause is espoused by herself appears to be seriously prejudiced by the act of the Respondent which is assailed as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice , constitution , vindictive , arbitrary , in legal victimization and against the rules and procedures in vogue. Therefore , there is no reason why action of the Management is not to be set aside . The petitioner as WW1 has sworn to her case in terms of her pleadings which do not stand rebutted by the Respondent by way of any rebuttal pleadings by filing a Counter Statement with documents. Her testimony does not stand shaken by any cross -examination by the opposite party who is at default to appear and defend her case . Though Respondent entered appearance through an Advocate filing a vakalat initially, thereafter consecutively and consistently remained absent or unrepresented leading it to be set ex - parte . Needless to say as against the case of the petitioner a contra case on behalf of the Respondent is wanting . The evidence of the petitioner as WW1 remaining unchallenged , it is only to be relied on as acceptable piece of evidence to sustain the claim ofthe petitioner in the absence ofanything inherently improbable and intrinsically infirm in the whole of the evidence.
8. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner to adecision ofthe Apex Court in ENGINEERING LAGOO UDYOG EMPLOYEES UNION VS. JUDGE , LABOUR COURT AND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAND ANOTHER (2003-12-SCC- 1 ) wherein it held "F. Labour Law-Domestic enquiry--Natural justice --- No enquiry/Defective enquiry -Held, there is no difference between no enquiry and a defective enquiry.
The petitioner, a permanent attender/peon in the Respondent's office was used to be called by her superior oneMr. Murthy, Dy. Manager (Accounts ) to his residence and while so she was being misbehaved by him resulting in her refusal to attend his home duty thereafter . Thereupon he started harassing her. She suffered very much mentally. She fell ill and suffered Osteoarthritis with bi - functional uterine bleedings with depression . Her leave application was not considered. She has been victimized for no wrong. Without enquiry or giving opportunity she was dismissed . No enquiry report was furnished to her. Punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. It was without a Show- Cause Notice . She was ultimately dismissed on 22-03-2006. Her numerous representations bore no fruit . Chairman once assured to consider her reinstatement . Representation was rejected as an appeal without rejecting the Medical Certificate. She was on medical leave . She was not allowed to rejoin duty. Leave was neither approved nor rejected . Principles ofnatural justice were not followed as in Article- 311 of the Constitution . No communication 'regarding enquiry was received by her . To facilitate ex-parte dismissal from service postal official may have avoided service of communications to her . Prior to dismissal order she has not received any communication which if received she would have had opportunity to participate in the enquiry to defend. Action is unilateral , arbitrary, vindictive and violative of nature justice . She is put to irreparable loss and hardship together with her dependents . Her medical records would reveal her ill- health . Hence setting aside---the dismissal order petitioner may be reinstated with continuity of service , backwages and all other attendant benefits .
9. In the result it is held. that the dismissal order is not legal and justified and the Respondent is directed to annul the dismissal order and reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including 50% backwages from the date of her dismissal .
4. The Respondent being absent and is set ex -parte, no counter Statement is put on record.
10.The petitioner is therefore entitled to relief as above and the reference is answered accordingly.
5. Points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner by the management is legal and justified?
(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 17th January, 2013)
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer (ii) To what relief the concerned workman are entitled?
Witnesses Examined :
: WWI , Smt. M. Kasthuri
For the 1st Party/
6. On behalf of the workman , WW 1 was examined byway ofProofAffidavit and Ex. W1 to Ex . W17 have been marked.
Petitioner
None
Points (i) and (ii)
For the 2nd Party/ :
Management
Documents Marked:
From the Petitioner's side
Date
Description
Ex. No.
Call Letter
13-01-1990
Ex.W 1
7. The uncontroverted pleadings supported by the evidence let in by WW1 , the workman espousing has cause standing dismissed by the Respondent shows that the action of the Respondent/Management is not justified or legal . The Respondent by shunning this Tribunal has not put forth what its justification is against its action in regard to the impugned dismissal against what is held out to be
53701/13-27 1534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
ANNEXURE
Ex. No. Date
Description
Ex. W2
Identity Card issued by CPT
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Ex.W3
Salary Slip
Ex.W4
Dated : 9th January, 2013
Representation
Ex.W4(A)
Medical Certificate
Present : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer
Ex.W5
C. R. No. 36/2006
Acknowledgement Cards Series
I Party
II Party
Ex.W6 22-03-2006
Order of Dismissal
Shri M Sadananda
The General
Ex.W7 30-06-2006
Shenoy,
Order on leave application
Ex.W8 27-10-2010 AppealPetition
Ex.W9 27-12-2010 Dispute raised before AC (Labour)
No. 14, 3rd Cross , Vannarapet Layout, Viveknagar, Bangalore- 560047 .
Manager(P) , Canara Bank , Head Office , Personnel Wing, 112 , J.C. Road, Bangalore- 560002.
Ex.W10 18-04-2011
Appearances
Reply counter by CPT before AC(Labour)
Ex. W11 16-06-2011
I Party
Enquiry letter in appeal
Ex.W12 26-07-2011
: Shri M. Eswar Rao Advocate
Orderin Appeal
Ex.W13 20-10-2011
II Party
Failure Report
Ex.W14 26-10-2012
: Shri T. R. K. Prasad Advocate
AWARD
Letter addressed to RLC (Central) with returned cover
Ex.W15
Representation
Ex.W16 19-11-2012 Reply by CPT
Ex. W17
Reference
From the Management's side
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub -section ( 1 ) of sub -section (2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 12012/ 52/2006- IR(B - II ) dated 13-09-2006 for adjudication on the following schedule :
Ex. No. Date
Description
SCHEDULE
N/A
नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating employment in respect of Shri M. Sadananda Shenoy, NND Agent , Shivajinagar and infantry Branches of Canara Bank, Bangalore w.e.f. July, 2004 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" का.आ. 489.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके, कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/52/2006 आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
2. On receipt of the reference registering it in C R 36/2006 when the notices were issued to both the sides , they entered their appearance through their respective advocates and I Party claim statement was filed on 01-12-2006 and counter statement of the II party on 17-05-2007.
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2013
S.O. 489.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 36/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CANARA BANK and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2013 .
[No. L- 12012/52/2006- IR (B - II )]
3. The I party in his claim statement claims that he was appointed as an agent to collect daily deposits under its NND/BKD/ NNND schemes in the year 1972 at II Party's Shivajinagar Branch which subsequently came to be merged with its Infantry Road Branch and since then for over a period of 27 years he rendered sincerely useful service to the II Party Bank and all of a sudden in the month of November 1998 the then Chief Manager of the Bank orally instructed him to stop collecting deposits as he is awaiting clarifications from Circle Office with regard tothe collection of maximum amount per day from a NNND Depositor and in that regard his request to give a written orders was not responded to and thereafter whenever he SHEESH RAM , Section Officer 1535 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
has come to an end section 2 (oo) (bb ) of ID Act are attracted as such on that count also he is not entitled for any claim. Further on facts it is contended the I party unilaterally, abruptly, voluntarily stopped his agency work since 1997 and not on the oral instructions of the Chief Manager of the Infantry Road Branch as alleged in his claim statement and that he has created such a story to somehow support his claim made in this.reference with an ulterior motive and this fact is supported by his own letter dated 22-02-2001 addressed to the Chief Manager , Canara Bank, Infantry Road Branch and only when the Bank raised the maximum limit of a deposit per day to 500.00 he came up with a request to permit him to continue the agency and as the same was not entertained he created a story that orally he was instructed to stop the collection in the month of November 1997 with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain and to take the advantage of the decision of the Hyderabad Industrial Tribunal upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Courtreferredto by him in his claim statement . Thus , it is contended the I party who on his own abandoned the agency in the year 1997 with an ulterior motive for making wrongful gain has raised this dispute .
used to approach the Chief Manager, Infantry Road Branch to enquire about the clarification from Circle Office he used to say that on receipt of the clarification he will be informed. He has further stated that he gave representation to the Chief Manager , Canara Bank , Infantry Road, on 02-01-1999, 03-05-1999 , 20-09-1999, 14-01-2000, 21-06-2000 and 12-12-2000 and that on 16-09-1997 the ChiefManager, Canara Bank , Infantry Road Branch addressed a letter bearing MS: CO: DEP : 621 : 97 to Deputy General Manager, Circle Office, Bangalore seeking permission to continue the scheme and then to his representation dated 22-02-2001 he received a reply on 07-03-2003 the matter has been referred to Circle Office and Circle Office in turn has taken up the matter with Head Office and he has to bear with them till then . Thereafter the Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank , Head Office , Bangalore released circular No. 67/2004 dated 29-03-2004 stating that under the New Nitya Nidhi Scheme Deposit maximum amount per day to per account has been enhanced from ₹100.00 to 500.00 and inspite of this from Head Office , the Chief Manager , Canara Bank , Infantry Road Branch did not permit him to collect the deposits and there after without any intimation or holding enquiry unilaterally made a publication in Sajevani Daily newspaper dated 20-07-2004 his services as an Agent being discharged due to this action the II Party has snatched his Bread and through his family to the streets illegally. He has further stated he has been deprived of the fall backwages , conveyance allowance and other benefits payable to him as per the orders of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 9783/1989 and of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3355/1998 as such he constrained to raise this dispute .
5. When the matter was posted for the evidence , on behalf of the Il party while filing the affidavit of Sh . AM Muneer Ahmed , who claims to have worked from June 1996 to June 1999 as Manager ( Establishment ) of the 11 party, Shivajinagar Branch swearing to the contention in the Counter Statement examining him on oath as MW 1 got exhibited Photostat copies of the Agency agreemen entered into with the I party by the 11 party dated 12-04-1972, 30-08-1978 , 19-11-1983 and the letter received from the I party dated 22-02-2001 as Ex M - 1 to Ex M -4 respectively.
6. Inter alia, the I party while filing his affidavit swearing to the allegations of his Claim Statement examining himself on oath as WW I got exhibited Xerox copiesof letter addressed by Chief Manager, Shivajinagar Branch to DGM , MIPD , Bangalore Circle Office dated 16-09-1997 regarding NNND Accounts ; Letter dated 22-02-2001 written by the 1 party to the Senior Branch Manager, Infantry Road , Bangalore requesting the II Party to permit him to open more than one account per party; Letter dated 07-10-2003 issued by the Senior Branch Manager, Infantry Road, Bangalore to the I party as reply to 1 Party letter dated 21-08-2003; Circular No. 67/2004 dated 29-03-2004 enhancing the maximum amount of collection per day per account from 100.00 to ₹ 500.00 issued by the DGM , Development Section on New Nitya Nidhi Deposit Scheme ; News Paper cutting of Sanjevani dated 20-07-2004 informing the customers regarding termination of agency of I Party ; copy of order of writ petition 9783/1989 dated 28-03-1997 on the file ofAndhra Pradesh High Court ; copy of order of Supreme Court in CivilAppeal no . 3355/1998; the letter of appreciation issued 4. In the counter statement filed for the II party under the signature of DGM , Canara Bank , Bangalore , it is contended the I party was being allotted agency to collect deposits under Jana Priya and Nitya Nidhi Deposits Schemes on commission basis subject to certain terms and conditions enumerated in the agreement entered into by him , there is no employer and employee relationship between the I party and II party bank and the actual relationship between the I party and the li party being that of agent and principal the I party cannot be considered to be a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of 1 D Act as such the reference is liable to be rejected . Further it is contended without prejudice to its above contentions the deposit collectors being not regular employees of the second party bank the provisions of ID act or section 25F of the Act are not applicable as such they cannot raise any industrial dispute about their non - employment either under section 2K or 2A of ID act . It is also contended that the II Party having stopped and discontinued the NNND deposit collecting schemes as a matter of policy the I party is not entitle to any reliefs claimed by him . It is also contended the engagement of the I party was being for a limited period upon expiry of the said period his agency 1536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4, 1934
PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) |
feeling that the commission he receives would be low due to the restriction one account holder cannot contribute depositmore than 100.00 only after it raised the maximum collection amount per account holder to 500.00 in the year 2004 he once again come up with a request to continuc his agency and as it had already closed its scheme it formally published in the Sanjevani News Paper his agency being terminated with a viewto caution the customers/ depositors not to part with their moncy the only point that arises for my consideration is
"Whether II Party prove that I party had abandoned his agency on his own in the year 1997 itself? " by the General Manager, Canara Bank to the I party dated 16-07-1974 with respect to the deposit secured by him; circular No. 107/1996 dated 09-10-1996 with respectto Writ Petition No. 9783/1989; letter of appreciation addressed by the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Shivajinagar Branch to him dated 20-09-1997 with respect to the deposit mobilisation ; certificate issued by the Senior Manager , Canara Bank, Shivajinagar Branch dated 01-01-1998 regarding his character and work ; Carbon copy of letter addressed by him to the Senior Manager , Canara Bank , Shivajinagar Branch , Bangalore dated 02-01-1999 along with the certificate of posting regarding posting the letter dated 02-01-1999 requesting the II Party to continue him as NNND Agent ; the carbon copy of my letter addressed to the Manager , Canara Bank, Shivajinagar , dated 03-05- 1999 under certificate ofposting requesting the II Partyto permit him to collect NNND deposits of over 100.00 per dayalong with the certificate of posting regarding posting the letter dated 03-05-1999 ; circular issued by the Head .. Office bearing No. 88/2001 dated 23-08-2001 regarding NND Agents /NNND Agents/ TINY Deposit collection - decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and copy of letter addressed by him to Chairman and Managing Director dated 19-03-2004 requesting to permit him to carry out the duties as NNND agent as Ex W- 1 to Ex W - 17 respectively.
9. From the close reading of the letters of the I party which he claims to have addressed to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank , Shivajinagar Branch produced at Ex W- 12, ExW- 14dated 02-01-1999 and 03-05-1999 it is clear he had feltrestricting maximum collection from an account holder to 100.00 was highly less and he could not get sufficient income and he had made a request to allow a person to open more than one account so that he can collect more money and earn more commission and had stopped collection of the deposits and was persuing the bank either to raise the maximum amount of deposit per account holder or to permit a person to open more than one account . This aspect is further supported or corroborated by his own letter addressed to the Senior Branch Manager , Infantry RoadBranch dated 22-02-2001 copy of which is produced atEx M-1 which reads as under :
"I have been doing NNND collection work at your Shivajinagar Branch since 1972. I have introduced good many valued clients /depositors to the Bank . However, during 1997 through branch Inspection it was observed that the account per party should not exceed one and amount 100 respectively .
I may write here that Shivajinagar area is a commercial /business hub of Bangalore where restriction to collect 100 per day is a different proposition.
7. With the above pleadings oral and documentary evidence of both the sides , the arguments of learned advocates for both the sides were heard . It appears the learned advocate appearing for the II Party in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Banks Association vs. The workmen of Syndicate Bank and others reported in AIR 2001 SCP 246 wherein it is held that the persons employed by the banks as Pigmy Collectors/Money Deposit Collectors on Commission Basis are workmen within the meaning of definition of workmen under 2( s) of the ID Act did not urge on the II Party contention that I party who worked as a collection agent of the deposit schemes of the II party as not the workman.
In fact, I had made an representation to the branch to permit to open more than one account per party/ firm since the amount of collection per day is restricted to ₹ 100 . My letter has not been replied which forced me to stop NNND collections there afterwards .
Now, I request your goodselves to permit me to restart NNND Collection for your Branch ( since Shivajinagar Branch has been merged with your Branch) with the existing terms and conditions as I am interested to collect/ canvas NNND account for your Branch . Kindly permit to do so early.
I hope to hear from you in this matter soon .
Thanking you. "
8. In view ofthe Award of the Hyderabad Industrial Tribunal holding the pigmy agents of the different banks as workmen and the remuneration paid to them as Wages which has been upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W P No. 9783/1989 and Hon'ble Supreme Court the decisionofwhich are reported is AIR 2001 SC 946 , now it is settled the deposit collectors under different schemes ofall the Bank on commission basis are the workmen and the commission paid to them is wages . Therefore , in view of the admitted fact that in the year 1972 the services of the I Party was availed by the II Party Shivajinagar Branch which later came to be merged in its Infantry Road Branch to collect the deposits under its NND /BKD/NNND schemes in view of the specific contention of the II Party that in the year 1997 on his own he abandoned his agency
10. The plain reading of the above letter especially the matter in unnumbered fourth para that he was forced [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Case No. CGIT/NGP/65/ 2001
Date: 15.01.2013
Party No. 1
The Zonal Manger, Central Bank of India , Oriental Building. Zonal Office, Kamptee Road, Nagpur.
Versus
PartyNo. 2
The General Secretary, Central Bank Staff Union , Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh , Baidyanath Road, Nagpur-440003.
AWARD
(Dated: 15th January, 2013 )
to stop NNND collections there afterwards ' makes it clear that on his own during 1997 he had stopped making collections due to restrictions of deposit amount per account to ₹ 100.00 and a person was not permitted to openmore then one account Thus as contended on behalf of the II Party the I party due to the restrictions of the Bank in making deposits maximum to ₹ 100.00 per account feeling that his commission would be too low he had on his own stopped to collect the deposits and only when the bank raised the maximum to 500.00 he tried to regain his agency and when the bank did not entertain it and on the other hand made a publication in the Newspaper his services being terminated warning the public not to make any transaction with him he comes up with this dispute . Under the circumstances , I have arrived at conclusion the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating agency of the I Party w.e.f. July 2004 is legal and justified and that I Party is not entitled for any relief. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
The Reference is Rejected holding that the action of the management in terminating employment in respect of Shri M. Sadananda Shenoy, NND Agent , Shivajinagar and infantry Branches of Canara Bank , Bangalore w.e.f. July, 2004 is legal and justified and that I party is not entitled for any relief . No order as to cost.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of section 10 of Industrial disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, Shri G.B. Raipure and four others , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 12011 / 143/2001 - IR (B- 11 ) dated 10.09.2001 , with the following schedule: -
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली,। फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 490. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/65/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India through its Zonal Manager , Nagpur in not absorbing and regularizing the services of Temporary Safai Karmacharis , Namely S/Sh . GB. Raipure , J.S. Gondane , Y.A. Pathan , S.P. Chaudhary and S.D. Kamble as permanent part time Safai Karmacharis w.e.f. 01-01-1999 is illgal , proper& justified ? If not , to what relief is the workmen entitled?"
[सं. एल-12011/143/2001- आई आर (बी -11) शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 1st February, 2013
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union , " Central Bank Staff Union" , ( " the Union" in short ) filed the statement ofclaim on behalf ofthe five workmen and the management ofCentral Bank of India , ( " Party No.1 " in short ) filed their written statement .
S.O. 490.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/65 /2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2013 .
[No. L- 12011 / 143 /2001 -IR ( B - II ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
The case of the workmen as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that it (union ) is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act , 1926 and there is no recognized union at Central Bank of India, having been recognized by the Government of India and the party no. 1 is a Banking company and is an industry and is covered by the provisions of the Act and so also by the provisions ofBombay Shops and Establishments Act . 1948 and since party no.1 is an establishment by virtue of section 38 ( B) ofthe said Act , the provisions of Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946 and the Standing Orders 1538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) |
Karmacharies , as per the Government of India guidelines . thewhole process of selection regularisation came to an end and as such , the workmen could not be absorbed and that the workmen are not entitled to any relief
4. It is necessary to mention here that even thought number ofopportunities was given to the workmen /union to adduce evidence in support of the claim, neither the workmen nor the union adduced any evidence .
5. One Rajendra Laxminarayan Khandelwal , a Senioε Manager has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party no. 1. In his examination in chief, which is on affidavit . this witness has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . In the cross - examination, this witness though was asked about the non production of the letter dated 07-09-1996 . letter dated 15-09-1998 and the general guide lines issuedby the Government of India, his evidence that due to non issuance of " No objection certificate" by the employment exchange , the workmen were absorbed has not at all been challenged .
dthereunder are applicable to them and the standing have got over riding effect over all the agreements este to them. The further case of the union is that calenployees are appointed on temporary casual basis terminated at the whims of party no . I and the said pzes are not allowed to complete 240 days in a year id permanency and absorption and such practice is nilegal and amounts to unfair labour practice - and Feral Office of party no . I issued the circular dated 1 for regularisation oftemporary safai karmacharie part time, who have been engaged for 240 days in any Com auous period of 12 months between the period from -1982 to 31-03-1995, with some terms and conditions 76 on 29-09-1995, the Regional Manager, Amravati issued mular called for application from temporary safai Karmacharı having the requisite eligibility criteria as stated in the circular dated 21-06-1995 , for absorption , from all the branches of the region and after holding interview, all da ve esner were found to be suitable for absorption workinan were entitled for absorption as part safai karmachari from the date of their interview, but Ja nu . I did not absorb them and such action of party is illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice and atthe principles of natural justice and breach of the by partym i themselves .
6. It is to be mentioned here that as on 19-12-2012 to which date the reference was fixed for argument , no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner to make argument . order was passed to proceed with the case ex parte against thepetitioner.
ine union has also pleaded that all the documents In connection of the workmen are in possession of the party no . 1 and party no . 1 is required to produce the same andthe contention of the management that issuance of "No Objection Certificate was refused by the employment exchange is devoid of any substance and the said requirement cannot override the provisions of standing orders and once an employee completes the requisite number ofdays of service , he is deemed to be a permanent employee
7. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail . In this case , the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence in support of the claim raised by it on behalf of the workmen . Applying the settled principles as mentioned above to this case , it is found that neither the petitioner nor the workmen are entitled to any relief. Hence . itisordered:
ORDER
The union has prayed to declare the five workmen as permanent part time safai karmacharies w.e.f. 01-01-1999 and to grant them all consequential benefits acluding provident fund .
The action of the management of Central Bank of India through its Zonal Manager. Nagpur in not absorbing and regularizing the services of Temporary Safai Karmacharies . Namely S/ Sh . G.B. Raipure . J.S. Gondane . Y.A. Pathan . S.P. Chaudhary and S.D. Kamble as perinanent part time Safai Karmacharies w.e.f. 01.01.1999 is legal proper and justified . The workmen are not entitledto any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2013
3. The party no.1 in their written statement have pred inter -alia that their Amravati Region had conducted nterviews for regularisation of temporary safai armuscharies , who had worked beyond 90 days in a continuous period of 12 months from 01-01-1982 to 31-03-1995, with some terms and conditions and were registered with the employment exchange at Amravati , but net sponsoredby the Exchange and after interview of all the candidates , the Regional Office approached the Amma att Employment Exchange vide its letter dated 07-06-1996 for "No Objection Certificate " , but the topment exchange vide letterdt . 15-09-1998 refusedto No objecnon certificate" , for absorption of the ts and as obtaining of "No objection certificate " Les ne employmem exchange was mandatory for Le services of the temporary Safai
का.आ. 491 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार क्या चम्पारण क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय 1539 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ १८ पुस १८ ( 1 ) ( डी ) ( 2 ए) को आई.जी. एक्ट 1947 को कगत करते है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को (01-02-2013 को प्राप्त
workmen and management are noticed, they submitted written statement and rejoinder. Management examined five witnesses from his side , whereas workman has examined himself in the case .
[सं. एल-12012/164/91- आई आर ( बी -1)] सुभति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 1st February, 2013
S.0.491 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Dispates Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Governinent hereby publishes the Award (U/S 10 ( 1 ) (d) Palof LD. Act , 1947 of the Cent Govt. Indus . Tribunal- an Labour Court No. Dhanbad as shown in the nackare in the industrial Dispute between the management of Kya Champaran Kshtriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01-02-2013 .
[No. 1. -12012/ 164/91 - IR. (B -I ) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case of the workman is he was appointed as a messenger in the management bank, by oral order but receiving salary, other benefits, bonus etc. But abruptly he was refused employment for which he raised the dispute. Onthe other hand, it is the submission of the management that the workman was taken on daily wage basis and he was not given wage on holidays . But subsequently it was noticed that the workman being in collusion with cashier and others misappropriated the bankloans sanctioned , in favour of loances . For which there was enquiry in the bank and from that day the workman voluntarily absented from coming to bank and did not perform his duty and as such he has no claim on bank . The workman case is that the temporary messengers under all the managements raised an industrial dispute which was referred to National Tribunal and it by it's award ordered to regularise all the daily wage workman , from the date of their joining or from the date they are working .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, DHANBAD
in the maner of reference U /S 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) of I.D. 1947.
Employer in relation to the management of Kya Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank.
AND.
Theirworkmen
PRESENT: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran , Presiding Officer.
Appearances :
None
For the Employers
:
For the Workman
Sri D. N. Trivedi , Representative
:
State: Bihar
Industry : Bank
Dated 11-12-2012 .
AWARD
3. But from the evidence of management witness and audit report , it appears that loans of 17 loanees which appears to have been disbursed to them was never disbursed to them . The MW - 1 was the clerk- cum- cashier at that point of time and he stated in his evidence that, in his presence , the workman did not approach the then the manager to work in the branch but in cross - examination he has stated that , he cannot say whether the workman was debarred from working in the bank. MW- 5 Senior Personnel Officer of the management has submitted in his evidence that, in the said bank the loans when disbursed to the loanee , it was not given to them but curiously during the time in the account of father of the workman that was deposited and subsequently the same was withdrawn by the workman not by his father the witness said , when the question of regularisation came the temporary messengers were called for interview including this workman , other workmen were observed . But as the embezzlement case was these , the workman voluntarily left the work and was not observed . The audit party members also found that the loan amount shown to be disbursed has not been disbursed . The amount deposited in the account of father of the workman and the workman withdrew the same MW-2 and MW - 3 are the auditors , who have been examined in the case supported the same.
By order No. L- 12012/ 164/ 91 - IR-( B -3 ), dt. 04-9-1991 , the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
4. The most important aspect of the case it the statement of workman himself. Certain part of cross- examination part of the workman is extracted here for clearity.
"Kya Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Motihari Prabandhan Dwara Karamkar Sri Bakar Ali Ki seva in Dinank 15-10-87 Se Bhang karne Ki Karyavahi Uchit Thi ? Yadi Nahin To Karmkar Kis Anutosh Ka Adhikari Hai ? "
In that branch I had Account No. IIS- 11 . This is my Specimen/ Signature vide Ext . M-4 . There is differences in
1. After receipt of the reference for answer, both the 1540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
my signature as on Exst . M - 6 and M - 4 and signature on Ext. M -4 is genuine and on Ext. M - 6 is incorrect. In that Branch Saving Account No. 340 was in my father's name . On Ext-M 4/2 specimen/ signature on withdrawal form B are my signature on 23-11-1982 and signature of my father was not there withdrawal for account No. 340 was done by me in my signature and my father died in the year about 1982, I cannot say exact date month and year of his death. About Ext . 4/4 filed by the workman and under the L.T.I. of father Neck Md. Ali dated 05-02-1986 he says that he did not remember that this petition was filed by my father on Ext.M-4/3 relating to A/C No.340 with-drawal on specimen signature of mine is given there along with L.T.I. of my father which dt. 05-02-1986 . In this account all withdrawals have been made with my signature and not with L.T.I. of my father.
5. From the above statement of workman it is clear thatwhile he is in bank, he has been involved with fraudulent activity and withdrawing money from his father's A/C after the death of his father which is highly objectionable . Moreover curiously money was deposited in his fathers A/C. soon after the disbursement of loans to the loanees and that was with drawn by the workman by his signature whout the L.T.I. of his father. No doubt the National Tribunal Awarded to observe all part time messengers to jom regular manner , but it has not been stated to absorve fraudulent person having criminal antecedent in bank which is dealing with public money. Moreover a criminal case for bank fraud is also continuing against the workman and other co -accused . Therefore the action of the management is proper. Management has not done any wrong in not regularising a simply daily wage employee who has criminal antecedent and his action is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
6. The award passed against the workman and it is observed that the action of the management is justified.
R. K. SARAN. Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, ४ फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 492 कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 फरवरी , 2013 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-
केन्द्र
निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने
वाले राजस्व गांव
(1)
(2)
कांचीपुरम जिले में मदुरंतकम ।. ममंदुर
तालुक में मदुरंतकम , उतिरमेंरूर 2. पलमतुर
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
1
2
तालुक
3. पुक्कातुरै
4. पलियानुर
5. वैयावुर
6. पडलम
7. कोलमबाक्कम
४. कल्लाबिरनपुरम
५. जानकीपुरम
10. मेलावलमपेटै
11. मेलावलम
12. करूंगुली
13. मदुरंतकम नगरीय सीमा
14. मलैपालयम
15. सत्ताम्मै
16. पुदुपट्टु
17. वेदवलम
18. चित्तमंगलम
19. पुलुतिवक्कम
20. इंदिरापुरम
21. मंगलम
22. कुमारवाडि
23. नटराजपुरम
24. सिलवट्टम
25. सौतुपक्कम
26. पोलमबाक्कम
27. इरूमबुलि
28. नेतंबाक्कम
29. केनराचेरी
30. मेलमारूवतुर
31. कीलमारूवतुर
32. अचरपक्कम
33. तेनमाक्कम
34. पाक्कम
35. कडमलैपुतुर
36. पेरूमपेरीकंडिगै
37. नेलवेरी/रेत्तमंगलम
38. चितंमुर
39. सलवाक्कम 1541
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 23 , 2013/फाल्गुन 4, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2
40. अतिमनम
41. मेटुवालयम
42. ऊनमलै
43. तोलुपेडु
la, 1 &38013112013 , 1-1J ]
नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2013
S.O. 492.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section I of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2013 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force, and Chapters- Vand VI [ except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77. 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil - Nadu namely : ---
Centre
Area comprising The Revenue Villages of
1. Mamandur Madurantakam in
2. Pazhamathur Madurantakam
3. Pukkathurai
4 Pazhiyanur Taluk & Uthiramerur Taluk , Kancheepuram District.
5. Vaiyavur
6. Padalam
7. Kolambakkam
8. Kallabiranpuram
9. Janakipuram
10. Melavalampettai
11. Melavalam
12. Karunguzhi
13. Madurantakam
Municipal Limits .
14. Malaipalayam
15. Saththammal
16. Pudupattu
17. Vedavalam
18. Chittamangalam
19. Puzhuthivakkam
20. Indirapuram
21. Mangalam
22. Kumaravadi
23. Natarajapuram
24. Silvattam
2
25. Soththupakkam
26. Polambakkam
27. Irumbuli
28. Nethambakkam
29. Kenracheri
30. Melmaruvathur
31. Keelmaruvathur
32. Acharapakkam
33. Thenpakam
34. Pakkam
35. Kadamalaiputhur
36. Perumperikandigai
37. Nelveli/Rettamangalam
38. Chithamur
39. Salavakkam
40. Aththimanam
41. Mettupalayam
42. Oonamalai
43. Thozhupedu
[No. S-38013/11 /2013 - S. S. - 1 ] NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 493 कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 मार्च , 2013 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी हैं) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं । के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-
केन्द्र
निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले राजस्व गांव
(2)
(1)
1. अतिपेडु
तिरूल्लूर जिले के पोन्नेरी
2. चिन्नम्बेडु
तालुक में पंचट्टी
3. तुरैनल्लूर
4. इरूलिपट्टु
5. जगन्नाथपुरम
6. कण्णिगैपैर
7. कारनोडै
8. कीलमेनी
9. माधवरम
10. मंजकरनै
11. नल्लूर 1542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 4 , 1934
PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)|
2
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2013
12. पंचट्टी
13. पेरवल्लूर
14. तच्चूर
[सं. एस-38013/ 12/2013 - एस.एस.- 1 ]
नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th February , 2013
S.O. 494.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March . 2013 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV [ Except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ] and Chapters -V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77. 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil - Nadu namely:
Centre
Area comprising the Revenue Villages of
Sattur Suburbs ,
1. Subramaniapuram
Sivakasi Taluk.
2. Sankaranatham
Virudhunagar District .
S.O. 493. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2013 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV [ except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ] and Chapters- V and VI [ except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil - Nadu namely :---
Centre
Area comprising the Revenue Villages of
2
| No. S-38013 / 13/2013 - S.S. - ij NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली. 15 फरवरी , 2013
1. Athipedu ,
Panjetti area in Ponneri Taluk , Tiruvallur District . 2. Chinnambedu
3. Durainallur
4. Irulipattu
5. Jegannathapuram
6. Kannigaipair,
का.आ. 495.- केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित है कि रक्षा प्रतिष्ठान में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 8 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है . उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेत्राएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए ।
7. Karanodai ,
8. Kilmeni
9. Madhavaram,
10. Manjakaranai
11. Nallur,
12. Panjetti
13. Peravallur
अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ह ) के उप खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदन शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषिन करती है ।
14. Thachur
[ No. S- 38013 /12/2013 - S.S. - 11
NARESH JAISWAL , Under Sccy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2013
नं. एम 110:: 8- " ? ત્યા . સંયુક્ત સત્ર
New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013
S.O. 495 -Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services inthe Defence establishments ' which is covered by item 8 ofthe First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) . shouldbe declared to be a Public Utility Service' for the purposes of the said Act .
का.आ. 494 कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 मार्च , 2013 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा को सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी हैं) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत की जा चुकी हैं ] के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे. अर्थात्:
केन्द्र
निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने
वाले राजस्वगांव
1. सुब्रमणियपुरम
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi ) of clause ( ni of section 2 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a PublicUtility Service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months .
विरुदुनगर जिले के सिवकासी तालुक में सात्तूर उप नगर
2. संकरनाथम
[सं. एस-38013/13/2013 - एस.एस. -11 नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव
No. S- 11017 8 /2011 - IR (PL3 | CHANDRA PRAKASFI . Jt . Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road Wasapta. New Dela - 1200 and Published by the Controller of Pubheersus the