रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04/0007/2003-05
सत्यमेवजयते
भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 10
No. 101
नई दिल्ली, मार्च 3 मार्च 9 , 2013 , शनिवार /फाल्गुन 12-फाल्गुन 18 , 1934 NEW DELHI , MARCH 3-MARCH 9 , 2013 , SATURDAY /PHALGUNA 12-PHALGUNA 18 , 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 II-खण्ड 3-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 तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 6 मार्च , 2013
का.आ. 537. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सरकार , गृह ( पुलिस ) अनुभाग ।। की अधिसूचना संख्या 565/6- पी- 11-2013-99एम/2013 दिनांक 4 मार्च 2013 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से निम्नलिखित कांडों:
अपराध संख्या
क्रम सं.
अंतर्गत धारा
1
2
3
1 .
18/2013
302 भा.द.सं. 1860 और धारा 7 सी.एल.ए. अधिनियम , 1961
2.
19/2013
396 , 307 , 323 , 504 , 332 , 353 , भा.द.सं. 1860 और धारा 7 सी.एल. ए. अधिनियम, 1961
3.
20/2013
302 , 504 , 506 , 120 बी भा.द.सं. ए 1860
756 G1/2013
2
3
4.
21/2013
147 , 148 , 149 , 302 , 504 , 506 , 120 बी भा.द.सं. , 1860 और धारा 7 सी.एल.ए. अधिनियम , 1961
थाना हाथिगाँव , जिला प्रतापगढ़ , यू.पी. में पंजीकृत अपराध के संबंध में अन्वेषण करने तथा प्रयास करने , दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किये गये अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।
[सं. 228/21 /2013 - ए.वी.डी.- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 6th March , 2013
S.O. 537.-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 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh , Grih ( Police) Anubhag - 11 , Lucknow conveyed vide Notification F. No. 565/6- P- 11-2013-99M/2013 dated 4th March , 2013 , hereby
(1719) extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of the offences viz:
Section Laws
Sl . No. Case No.
18/2013
1 . Under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act , 1961 (Act No. 23 of 1961)
19/2013
2. Under section 396 , 307 , 323 , 504 , 332, 353 , of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act No. 23 of 1961 )
3. 20/2013
Under section 302 , 504 , 506 , 120B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (ActNo. 45 of 1860)
4. 21/2013 Under section 147 , 148 , 149 , 302 , 504, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 ( Act No. 23 of 1961)
registered at Police Station Hathigawan , Distt. Pratapgarh , Uttar Pradesh and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offinces committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[F. No. 228/ 21 /2013 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.
गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 538. केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम( 4) के अनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :
महानिदेशक का कार्यालय , सशस्त्र सीमा बल , पूर्वी खण्ड-5 , आर. के. पुरम , नई दिल्ली -110066
[सं. 12017/1/2012 - हिन्दी ] अवधेश कुमार मिश्र , निदेशक (राजभाषा)
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013 S.O. 538.- In pursuance of sub- rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Languages ( Use for Official Purpose ofthe Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Governement hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairswherein the percentage of the staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80% :
Office of the Director General , Shashastra Seema Bal, East Block- 5 , R. K. Puram , New Delhi - 110066 .
[No. 12017/ 1 /2012-Hindi ] AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA , Director ( OL ) वित्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्व विभाग )
( केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , पुणे- III के आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) पुणे , 17 दिसम्बर , 2012 सं. 01/2012-सीमा- शुल्क. ( नॉन टैरिफ )
का.आ. 539. भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 01 जुलाई , 1994 को जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्या-33/1994 सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टैरिफ ) के अंतर्गत सीमा- शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 152 के खंड ( अ ) के अधीन मुझे प्रदत्त अधिकारों को कार्यान्वित करते हुए महाराष्ट्र राज्य के जिल्हा- पुणे , तालुका- बारामती के अधीन ग्राम ' वान्जरवाडी' को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अधीन शतप्रतिशत निर्यात लक्ष्यी यूनिट ( 100 % ई ओ यू) /ई.एच.टी. पी. /एस.टी.पी . यूनिटों की स्थापना के लिए वेअरहाउसिंग स्टेशन के रूप में घोषित कर रही हूँ ।
[फा. सं. वीजीएन ( 30 ) 137/वेअरहाउसिंग स्टेशन/ 2012/2228 ] संगीता शर्मा , आयुक्त
!
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE , PUNE - III )
Pune , the 17th December , 2012 No. 01 /2012 - Customs ( N.T. )
S.O. 539. In exercise of the powers conferred vide Notification No. 33 / 1994-Customs ( N.T. ) dated 1st July, 1994 by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi , under clause ( a) of Section 152 ofthe Customs Act , 1962 ( 52 of 1962 ), Village 'Vanzarwadi ' falling under Tal : ' Baramati ' , District : ' Pune ' in the State of Maharashtra is hereby declared to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962, for the limited purpose of setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Units ( EOU ) /EHTP / STP Units .
[F. No. VGN( 30) 137/ Warehousing Station/2012/2228 ] SUNGITA SHARMA , Commissioner 1721
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(व्यय विभाग )
5. Principal Director, Audit (East Central Railway ) , Hazipur;
नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013
6. Principal Director , Audit (North Central Railway) , Allahabad;
7. Director General Audit (Central Receipt) , New Delhi ;
8. Director General Audit ( Central Expenditure ) , New Delhi;
का.आ. 540 केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय लेखापरीक्षा और लेखा विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को , जिनके अस्सी प्रतिशत कर्मचारिवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती हैं:-
9. Deputy Director Audit ( Ordinance Factory ) , Jabalpur;
1 . महालेखाकार ( लेखा एवं हकदारी ) , उतराखंड , देहरादून ।
2. महालेखाकार ( लेखा एवं हकदारी ) , छत्तीसगढ़ रायपुर ।
10. Deputy Director Audit (Post and Telegraph ) , Tiruvanantapuram;
3. क्षेत्रीय प्रशिक्षण संस्थान , राँची ।
11. Deputy Director , office of Commercial Audit , Steel Plant, Vishakhapatnam;
4. प्रधान निदेशक, लेखापरीक्षा ( दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे ) , बिलासपुर ।
12. Principal Director Audit ( North West Railway) , Jaipur;
5. प्रधान निदेशक, लेखापरीक्षा ( पूर्व मध्य रेलवे ) , हाजीपुर ।
6. प्रधान निदेशक, लेखापरीक्षा ( उत्तर मध्य रेलवे ) , इलाहाबाद ।
7. महानिदेशक, लेखापरीक्षा ( केन्द्रीय प्राप्ति) , नई दिल्ली ।
[No. C- 11021/01 /2012 -EG] SUBHASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )
8. महानिदेशक , लेखापरीक्षा ( केन्द्रीय व्यय ) , नई दिल्ली ।
नई दिल्ली, 25 फरवरी , 2013
9. उप-निदेशक , लेखापरीक्षा ( केन्दीय फैक्ट्री ) , जबलपुर ।
10. उप- निदेशक , लेखापरीक्षा (डाक एवं तार ) , तिरुवनंतापुरम ।
11. उप - निदेशक, वाणिज्यिक लेखापरीक्षा का कार्यालय विशाखापट्टनम इस्पात संयंत्र विशाखापट्टनम ।
12. प्रधान निदेशक, लेखापरीक्षा उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे , जयपुर ।
[सं. सी. 11021/01 /2012 - ई.जी. ]
सुभाष चन्द , उप सचिव
(Department of Expenditure )
New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013
का.आ. 541 मंत्रिमंडलीय नियुक्ति समिति द्वारा दिनांक 11-12-2008 को अनुमोदित दिशानिर्देश संख्या 18 ( 52 ) ईओ/08 (एसीसी ) के साथ पठित भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 की धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) के साथ पठित धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इस विभाग की दिनांक 18-01-2011 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के द्वारा श्री आनंद सिन्हा ( जन्म तिथि: 03-02-1951 ) को दिनांक 28-02-2013 तक की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक का डिप्टी गवर्नर नियुक्त किया गया था , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के डिप्टी गवर्नर के रूप में उनके कार्यकाल की अवधि को 18-01-2014 तक, इस कार्यालय में कार्यभार संभालने की तारीख अर्थात 19-01-2011 से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के पूरा होने तक , बढाया जाता है ।
[फा. सं. 7/1/2012 - बीओ-1 ]
श्रेया गुहा , निदेशक
(Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 25th February, 2013 S.O. 540.-In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Governement hereby notifies the following offices of the Government of India in the Indian Audian and Accounts Department , in which eighty per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi , namely :-
1. Accountant General ( Accounts and Entitlement) , Uttarakhand , Dehradun ;
2. Accountant General ( Accounts and Entitlement ) , Chhattisgarh , Raipur ;
3. Central Training Institute , Ranchi ;
4. Principal Director, Audit ( South East Central Railway) , Bilaspur;
S.O. 541.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 read with sub- section ( 4) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank of Inida Act, 1934 read with guidelines No. 18 (52 ) ΕΟ/ 08 (ACC) dated 11-12-2008 , approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet , Shri Anand Sinha (DoB ; 03- 02-1951 ) , appointed as Deputy Governor , Reserve Bank of India, vide this Departments notification of even number dated 18-01-2011 , for a period upto 28-02-2013 , evenis hereby continued as Deputy Governor , [PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Reserve Bank of India until 18-01-2014 when he completes the tenure of three years from the date on which assumed office, i.e. 19-01-2011 .
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi , the 28th February , 2013 [F. No. 7/ 1 /2012-BO- I ] SREYA GUHA , Director
नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2013
S.O. 543 -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 Shri Kuldip Singh Soreng , Assistant in Assistant High Commission of India Mombasa, to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officers with effect from 28thFebruary, 2013 .
[No. Τ. 4330/01/2006 ] R.K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. ( Consular) नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 542 बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर , एतद्वारा, घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उपखण्ड ( i ) के उपबंध यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पर लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक श्री डी. सरकार को बैंकिंग कार्मिक चयन संस्थान (आईबीपीएस ) के शासी मंडल में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करने से है ।
[फा. सं. 13/1/2012-बीओ -1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th February, 2013
का.आ. 544. -राजनयिक और कांसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री वी.जी. जोशी , पी. ए. और श्री आर. के. सिन्हा , जी.ए. को 28-2-13 से भारत के कोन्सलावास, मेलबार्न में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
[सं. टी. 4330/01/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर) New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013 S.O. 542 -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949) , the Government of India on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India , hereby declare that the provisions of sub- clause ( i ) of clause ( c ) of sub - section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Union Bank of India in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri D. Sarkar, Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank for nomination as a Member on the Governing Board of Institute ofBanking Personnel Selection ( IBPS).
[F. No. 13/ 1 /2012-BO-I ] VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.
S.O. 544 In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (4 ) of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri V.G. Joshy, Personal Assistant , and Shri R.K. Sinha , GA in Consulate General of India, Melbourne to perform the duties of Assistant Consular officers with effect from 28th February, 2013.
[No. Τ. 4330/01/2006]
विदेश मंत्रालय
R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. ( Consular)
(सीपीवी प्रभाग)
रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड)
नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 543 राजनयिक और कांसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री कुलदीप सिंह सोरेंग सहायक को 28-2-13 से भारत के सह उच्चायोग, मोमबासा सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
[सं. टी. 4330/01/2006]
आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर)
का.आ. 545 रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे के रायपुर मंडल के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है: - [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1723
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
क्रम सं. कार्यालय का नाम
1. डीजल लोको शेड , रायपुर
2. विद्युत लोको शेड, भिलाई
3. पी. पी. यार्ड , भिलाई
[सं. हिंदी-2013/रा.भा. - 1/ 12/1 ] के. पी. सत्यानंदन , निदेशक ( राजभाषा )
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
New Delhi , the 18th February, 2013
S.O. 545. Ministry of Railways ( Railway Board) , inpursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for the official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 ( as amended , 1987) hereby, notify the following Officesof Raipur Division of South Eastern Central Rly, where 80% or more Officers /Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :--
Sl . No.
Name of the Office
1. Diesel Loco Shed , Raipur
2. Electric Loco Shed , Bhilai
3. P.P. Yard, Bhilai
[No. Hindi -2013 /O.L- 1 / 12/ 1 ] K.P. SATYANANDAN, Director ( O.L. ) नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 546 रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड) , राजभाषा नियम , 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में दक्षिण- पूर्व- मध्य रेलवे के बिलासपुर मंडल के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है :-
क्रम सं. कार्यालय का नाम
(1) (2.)
1.
स्टेशन प्रबंधक (राजपत्रित ) , बिलासपुर
2. प्राचार्य/विद्युत लोको प्रशिक्षण केंद्र, बिलासपुर
3. अपर मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक , रायगढ़
4. वरिष्ठ सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर, रायगढ़
5. सहायक मंडल सिग्नल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर , रायगढ़
6. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर ( कर्षण ) , शहडोल (2)
(1)
7. सहायक मंडल सिग्नल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर , शहडोल
8. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर , उमरिया
9. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर, मनेन्द्रगढ़
10. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर ( कर्षण ) मनेन्द्रगढ़
11 . अपर मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक , मनेन्द्रगढ़
[सं. हिन्दी-2013/रा.भा. - 1 / 12/1 ] के. पी. सत्यानंदन निदेशक , ( राजभाषा) New Delhi , the 27th February, 2013
S.O. 546 -Ministry of Railways ( Railway Board) , in pursuance of Sub - Rule ( 2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules , 1976 ( use for the official purposes of the Union) hereby notify the following Offices of Bilaspur Divsion of Soth- East-Central Railway, where 80% or more Officers /Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi: ---
Sl . No. Name of the Office
Office of the Station Manager ( Gazetted) , Bilaspur. 1.
2. Office of the Principal Electric Loco Training Centre, Bilaspur
Office of the Additional Chief Medical Superintendent , Raigarh 3.
Office ofthe Senior Assistant Divisional Engineer , Raigarh 4.
Office of the Assistant Divisional Signal of & Telecom Engineer , Raigarh 5.
Office of the Assistant Divisional Electric Engineer (TRD) , Shahdol 6.
7. Office of the Assistant Divisional Signal & Telecom Engineer , Shadol
8. Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer , Umaria
9. Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer , Manendragarh
10. Office of the Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer ( TRD), Manendragarh
11. Office of the Additional Chief Medical Superintendent , Manendragarh . [No. Hindi -2013/O.L - 1 / 12/ 1 ]
K. P. SATYANANDAN, Director ( O.1.. ) 1724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013/PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय
1 . पोस्टमास्टर जनरल कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र , कोझिकोड-673011
(दूरसंचार विभाग)
2. अधीक्षक रेल डाक सेवा कार्यालय , ' इ के ' ( केरल ) , कोच्चि-682001
( राजभाषा प्रभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2013
[सं. 11017-1/2011 - रा.भा.]
मीरा हांडा, उप महानिदेशक ( फिलैटली/रा.भा. )
(Department of Posts)
New Delhi , the 25th February, 2013 का.आ. 547 केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथा- संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता हैं ।
1. कार्यालय , मुख्य- महाप्रबंधक , कार्यवाहिनी , पूर्वोत्तर क्षेत्र , गुवाहाटी -781001
S.O. 548.-In pursuance of Rule 10(4 ) of the Official Language ( use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies following offices of the Office of the Chief Postmaster General , Kerala Circle , Thiruvanathapuram - 695033 of the Department of Posts where 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-
2 , कार्यालय , मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, पश्चिमी दूरसंचार परियोजना, मुंबई-400054
1. O/ o the Postmaster General , Northern Region , Kozhikode- 673011
[सं. ई. 11016/1/2009- रा.भा. ]
भारत भूषण कौरा , संयुक्त सचिव
2. O/ o the Superintendent , RMS EK ' Division (Kerala) , Kochi - 682011
[No. 11017-1 /2011 -O.L. ] MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MEERA HANDA , Dy. Director General ( Philately/OL ) (Department ofTelecommunications)
(OFFICIAL LANGUAGE DIVISION )
युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्रालय
New Delhi , the 1st March , 2013
नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
S.O. 547 - In pursuance of rule 10(4) ofthe Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of Ministry of Communications and I.T. , Department of Telecommunications whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi .
का.आ. 549. केंद्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्रालय के स्वायत्तशासी कार्यालय नेहरू युवा केंद्र संगठन नेहरू युवा केंद्र, मुम्बई जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।
1. ChiefGeneral Manager, North- East Task Force Circle, Guwahati -781001
[मि.सं. ई-11011/2/2008- हि.ए. ]
2. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, Mumbai-400054
थंगलेमलियन , उप सचिव
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS [No. E. 11016/ 1 /2009-O.L . ]
New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013 BHARAT BHUSHAN KAURA , Jt . Secy.
(डाक विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2013
S.O. 549. In pursuance of sub - rule ( 4) of Rule of 10 of Official Language ( use for official purpose of the Union) Rule 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Nehru Yuva Kendra , Mumbai , an autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs& Sports , whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi .
[ F. No. E - 11011 /2/2008 - H.U . ] THANGLEMLIAN , Dy. Secy.
का.आ. 548. राजभाषा नियम ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार, डाक विभाग के अधीनस्थ कार्यालय मुख्य पोस्टमास्टर जनरल , केरल परिमंडल , तिरूवनन्तपुरम -695033 के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-
1725 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18, 1934
वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 550 केंद्र सरकार , सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की ध ारा 20 के साथ पठितं धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इस प्रयोजन के लिए संपदा अधिकारियों के रूप में सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी होने के नाते भारत सरकार के पूर्ववर्ती निर्माण , आवास एवं पूर्ति मंत्रालय की दिनांक 28 जनवरी , 1959 की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 307 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है :-
नीचे दी गई तालिका में उक्त अधिसूचना की क्र. सं. 26 के भाग ( ग ) के स्थान पर कॉलम 1 व 2 में प्रविष्टियों के लिए निम्नलिखित प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा :-
तालिका
(2)
(1)
" (ग ) उप नमक आयुक्त, मुंबई अथवा
महाराष्ट्र, कर्नाटक राज्यों तथा गोवा केंद्र शासित क्षेत्र में स्थित नमक विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर । "
नियमित उप नमक आयुक्त की अनुपस्थिति में उप नमक आयुक्त के कार्यालय में तैनात वरिष्ठतम सहायक नमक आयुक्त
[सं. 12016/1 /2009- नमक] संजीवनी ताम्हणे , उप सचिव
नोट : मूल अधिसूचना सं का. आ. 307 , दिनांक 28-01-1959 को जारी की गई थी तथा पिछली बार इसे सं. का. आ. 638 , दिनांक 10-02-1984 द्वारा संशोधित किया गया था ।
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion)
New Delhi , the 26th February, 2013
S.O. 550.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 20 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments to the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Works , Housing and Supply number S. O. 307 dated the 28th January, 1959 being Gazetted Officers of Government to the Estate Officers for the purpose, namely: -
In the Table below the said notification , for entries in columns 1 and 2 against Part (c ) of serial number 26 , the following shall be substituted, namely :-
TABLE
(2)
(1)
" (C) Deputy Salt Commissioner, Mumbai or
Premises under the administrative control of the Salt Department situated in the States of Maharashtra , Karnataka and the Union Territory of Goa . "
Senior most Assistant Salt Commissioner posted in the office of the Deputy Salt Commissioner in the absence of regular Deputy Salt Commissioner.
[No. 12016/ 1 /2009-Salt ]
SANJIVANI TAMHANE , Dy. Secy.
Note : The principal notification was issued vide No. S. O. 307 dated 28-01-1959 and was last amended vide No. S. O. 638 dated 10-02-1984.
1726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 9 , 2013/PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii )]
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 551. 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 जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है , वह स्थापित हो गया है : -
अनुसूची
क्रम
स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
(1)
(2)
1.
आई एस 16023 : 2012/ आई एस ओ
4387: 2000 सिगरेट नेमी विश्लेषणात्मक धूम्रपान
मशीन के प्रयोग से सकल एवं निकोटीन- मुक्त शुष्क परटीकुलेट द्रव्य ज्ञात करना
2.
आई एस 16025: 2012/ आई एस ओ
10315: 2000 सिंगरेट धूम्र संधनित पदार्थ में निकोटीन ज्ञात करना गैस क्रोमेटोग्राफिक पद्धति
3.
आई एस 16026: 2012/ आई एस ओ
15152: 2003 तम्बाकू- निकोटीन के रूप में सकल एल्कलाइड अंश ज्ञात करना सतत- प्रवाह विश्लेषण पद्धति
4.
आई एस 16042 ( भाग -1 ) : 2012/ आई एस ओ 10362-1 : 1999 सिगरेट धूम्र संधनित पदार्थ में जल ज्ञात करना भाग 1 गैस क्रोमेटोग्राफिक पद्धति
स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(3)
(4)
31 दिसंबर 2012
31 दिसंबर 2012
31 दिसंबर 2012
31 दिसंबर 2012
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक 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 एफएडी/जी-128 ।
डॉ. आर. के. बजाज, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
( BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS )
New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013
S.O. 551.-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 has been established on the date indicated against it:
SCHEDULE
Date of Establishment Sl . No. No. and Year of the Indian Standard Established
No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
31 December 2012 1.
IS 16023 : 2012 /ISO 4387 : 2000 Cigarettes- Determination of total and nicotine- freedry particulate matter using a routine analytical smoking machine
31 December 2012 2. IS 16025 : 2012 /ISO 10315 : 2000 Cigarettes- Determination of nicotine in smoke condensates-Gas chromatographic method
31 December 2012 3. IS 16026 : 2012 /ISO 15152: 2003 Tobacco- Determination of the content of total alkaloids as nicotine Continuous-flow analysis method
31December 2012 4. IS 16042 (Part - 1 ) : 2012/ISO 10362-1 : 1999 Cigarettes-Determination of water in smoke condensates-Part- 1 : Gas chromatographic method
Copy ofthis Standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[ Ref. FAD/G - 128 ]
Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Food & Agri . )
नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 552.- 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 नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं ।
अनुसूची
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि
संशोधन की संख्या
और तिथि
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
28 फरवरी 2013 1.
संशोधन संख्या 2 ,
फरवरी 2013
आईएस 9297: 1979 बांधों के अंदर प्रकाश , वेंटिलेशन , और अन्य सुविधायों के लिए सिफारिशें
इस संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर 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 । भारतीय मानकों को http: //www.standardsbis . in. पर इंटरनेट द्वारा खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[ संदर्भ डब्ल्यूआर डी 09 /टी -11 ]
जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( जल संसाधन विभाग )
756GI /2013-2 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013
S.O. 552. 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 amendments to the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
Sl.No. No. and year ofthe Indian Standards
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the
amendment
(1)
(2)
1. IS 9297 : 1979 Recommendations for lighting , ventilation and other facilities inside dams
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(3)
(4)
28th February, 2013 Amendment No. 2 February 2013
Copy of this amendment 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, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram . On line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at :http: //www.standardsbis . in.
[ Ref. WRD 09/T- 11 ]
J. C. ARORA , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Water Resources Deptt . )
नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 553.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानक के संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-
क्रम सं. संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या
और तिथि
(1 )
(2)
1. आईएस 13953 : 1994 खाँडसारी विशिष्टि
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि
(3)
(4)
28 फरवरी , 2013 संशोधन संख्या 2 , वर्ष 2013
इस संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर 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 तिरूवनम्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ एफएडी/जी-128 ]
डॉ. आर. के. बजाज , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि ) New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013
S.O. 553.-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 amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :
SI.No.
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the
Amendment
No. and year ofthe Indian Standard
(2)
(1)
1. IS 13953 : 1994 Khandsari Specification
Dateofwhich the Amendment shall have effect
(4)
(3)
28th February, 2013 Amendment No. 2 , Year2013
Copy of this amendment 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 , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref. FAD/G - 128 ]
Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Food & Agri . )
नई दिल्ली, 25 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 554.-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 भारतीय मानक के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गए हैं :-
स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों) की क्रम
संख्या और शीर्षक
संख्या
(2)
(1)
1. आई एस 1121 ( भाग 1 ): 2013 प्राकृतिक निर्माण पत्थरों के सामर्थ्य गुणों को ज्ञात करना परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग । संपीडन सामर्थ्य (दूसरा पुनरीक्षणं)
2. आई एस 1121 ( भाग 2 ) : 2013 प्राकृतिक निर्माण पत्थरों के सामर्थ्य गुणों को ज्ञात करना परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 2 अनुप्रस्थ सामर्थ्य (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
3. आई एस 1121 ( भाग 4): 2013 प्राकृतिक निर्माण पत्थरों के सामर्थ्य गुणों को ज्ञात करना परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 4 कर्तन सामर्थ्य (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(4) (3)
31जनवरी, 2013 आई एस 1121 ( भाग 1 ): 1974 प्राकृतिक निर्माण पत्थरों के सामर्थ्य गुणों को ज्ञात करना परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग । संपीडन सामर्थ्य ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
31जनवरी , 2013 आई एस 1121 ( भाग 2 ) : 1974 प्राकृतिक निर्माण पत्थरों के सामर्थ्य गुणों को ज्ञात करना परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 2 अनुप्रस्थ सामर्थ्य ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
31जनवरी , 2013 आई एस 1121 (भाग 4 ): 1974
प्राकृतिक निर्माण पत्थरों के सामर्थ्य गुणों को ज्ञात करना परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 4 कर्तन सामर्थ्य ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 18, 1934
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक 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 सीईडी/राजपत्र ]
डी. के. अग्रवाल , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )
New Delhi , the 25th February , 2013
S.O. 554. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it :
SCHEDULE
Sl . No.
Date when Established No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established and Title
No. and Year of the indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
141
1.
IS 1121 (Part 1) : 2013
21 January, 2013 Determination of strength properties of natural building Methods of test : Part 1 Compressive strength (Second revision) stones
IS 1121 ( Part 1 ) : 1974 Methods of test for determination of strength properties of natural building stones: Part 1 Compressive strength ( First revision )
2.
IS 1121 ( Part 2): 2013
31 Jannary, 2013 Determination of strength properties of natural building stones Methods of test : Part 2 Transverse strength (Second revision)
IS 1121 (Part 2): 1974 Methods of test for determination of strength properties of natural building stones : Part 2 Transverse strength (First revision)
3.
IS 1121 ( Part 4) : 2013
31 January. 2013 Determination of strength properties of natural building stones Methods of test : Part4 Shear strength (Second revision)
IS 1121 (Part 1 ): 1974 Methods of test for determination of strength properties of natural building stones : Part 4 Shear strength ( First revision)
Copy of this Standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[ Ref. CED/Gazette ]
D. K. AGRAWAL , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg. ) भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 9, 2013 /फाल्गुन 18, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 28 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 555 .- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है : -
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3 )
(2)
(1)
दिसम्बर , 2012 1. आईएस/आईएसओ/आईईसी 2382-36: 2008 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी-शब्दावली भाग 36 प्रशिक्षण
दिसम्बर, 2012 2. आईएस 11137 ( भाग 2 ): 2012/ आईएसई 60812: 2006 पद्धति विश्वसनीयता के लिए विश्लेषण तकनीकें भाग 2 विफलता प्रकार एवं प्रभाव विश्लेषण हेतु प्रक्रिया ( एफ.एम.ई.ए ) ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
दिसम्बर , 2012 3. आईएस 14990 ( भाग 1 ): 2012/ आईएसओ/आईईसी 15408-1 : 2009 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी सुरक्षा तकनीकें- सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी की सुरक्षा के लिए मूल्यांकन के मापदंड भाग । परिचय एवं सामान्य माडल (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
दिसम्बर , 2012 4. आईएस 15580: 2012/आईएसओ/आईईसी 21827: 2008 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी सुरक्षा तकनीक सुरक्षा तंत्र इंजीनियरिंग क्षमता परिपक्वता प्रतिरूप (एस.एस.ई.सी.एम.एम. ) ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
दिसम्बर , 2012 5. आईएस/ आईएसओ/आईईसी 24751-1: 2008 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी ई शिक्षण , शिक्षा और प्रशिक्षण में व्यक्तिगत पहुंच और अनुकूलनशीलता भाग 1 फ्रेमवर्क और संदर्भ मॉडल
दिसम्बर , 2012 6. आईएस/ आईएसओ/आईईसी 24751-1: 2008 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी ई शिक्षण , शिक्षा और प्रशिक्षण में व्यक्तिगत पहुंच और अनुकूलनशीलता भाग 2 " सभी के लिए पहुँच " वैयक्तिक आवश्यकता और डिजिटल विवरण के लिए वरीयतायें
दिसम्बर , 2012 7. आईएस/ आईएसओ/आईईसी 24751-3: 2008 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी- ई शिक्षण , शिक्षा और प्रशिक्षण में व्यक्तिगत पहुंच और अनुकूलनशीलता भाग 3 " सभी के लिए पहुँच " डिजिटल संसाधन विवरण 1732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART II---SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
8.
दिसम्बर , 2012 आईएस/आईईसी 61196-1-310 :2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-302 यांत्रिक परीक्षण विधियाँ- तांबा चढी धातुओं की मरोड़ विशेषताओं के लिये परीक्षण
9.
दिसम्बर , 2012 आईएस/ आईईसी 61965: 2003 कैथोड किरण ट्यूब की सुरक्षा
इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूरं , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
['संदर्भ एल आई टी डी/जी-75 ] पी. राधाकृष्णा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख (इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आईटी )
New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013 S.O. 555. 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
Date of Established No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Dec , 2012
1. IS/ ISO/IEC 2382-36:2008 Information technology- Vocabulary Part 36 learning education and training
Dec, 2012
2. IS 11137 (Part 2) : 2012/IEC 60812:2006 Analysis techniques for system reliability Part 2 Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) (FirstRevision)
Dec , 2012
3. IS 14990 ( Part 1 ) :2012/ISO/IEC 15408- 1:2009 Information technology - Security techniques - Evaluation criteria for it security Pat 1 Introduction and general model (Second Revision)
Dec , 2012
4. IS 15580: 2012/ISO/IEC21827 :2008 Information technology-Security techniques-Systems security engineering- Capabilitymaturity model (SSE -CMM) (FirstRevision)
Dec , 2012
5. IS/ISO/IEC 24751-1 : 2008 Information Technology-Individualized adaptability and accessibility in E- Learning education and training Part 1 Framework and reference model 1733
भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 9, 2013/फाल्गुन 18, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Dec, 2012
6. IS /ISO/IEC 24751-1 : 2008 Information Technology-Individualized adaptability and accessibility in E- Learning education and training Part 2 " Access For All " Personal needs and preferences for digital delivery
Dec, 2012
7. IS/ISO/IEC 24751-1 : 2008 Information Technology-Individualized adaptability and accessibility in E- Learning education and training Part 3 " Access For All " Digital resources description
Dec, 2012
8. IS/IEC 61196-1-310 :2005 Coaxial communciation cables Part 1-310 Mechanical test methods-Test for torsion characteristics of Copper - Clad Metals
Dec , 2012
9. IS/IEC 61965 : 2003 Mechanical safety of cathode ray tubes
Copy of this 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 , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref. LITD/G- 75 ]
P. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F ' & Head (LITD )
नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 556.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :
अनुसूची
संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि
संशोधन की संख्या
और तिथि
क्रम सं. संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
तुरंत
1.
संशोधन संख्या 2 ,
फरवरी , 2013
आईएस 15245 :2002 डिजिटल सेट अप बाक्स-विनिर्देश
इस संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुबनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं । भारतीय मानकों को :http: //www.standardsbis . in पर इंटरनेट द्वारा खरीदा जा सकता है ।
:
[संदर्भ एल आई टी डी/जी -75]
पी. राधाकृष्णा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी ) 1704
INDIA: MARCH 9 , 2013/PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013
S.O. 556.- In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment, to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
Sl.No. No. and year of the Indian Standards
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the
amendment
(1)
(2)
1. IS 15245 : 2002 Digital set top box - specification
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(3)
(4)
Amendment No. 2 February 2013
with immediate effect
Copies of this amendment 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, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram . On line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at : http: //www.standardsbis . in .
[ Ref. LITD/G - 751
P. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( LITD)
नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 557. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरणं में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गये हैं :
क्रम सं. रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
1. आईएस/आईएसओ/आईईसी 13335-1 ( 2004) सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी- सुरक्षा तकनीक सूचना और संचार प्रौद्योगिकी- सुरक्षा प्रबंधन के लिए सूचना और संचार प्रौद्योगिकी सुरक्षा के प्रबंधन- भाग । मॉडल और अवधाराणाओं
अनुसूची
टिप्पणी
भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित
(3)
(4)
बेस मानक 27005 : 2011 आईएसओ/आईईसी जो गोद लेने के लिए पहले से ही भारतीय मानक के रूप में प्रतिस्थापित किया गया है
अतः 31 दिसम्बर 2012 से स्थगित है
[ संदर्भ एल आई टी डी/जी -75 ]
पी. राधाकृष्णा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी) 1735
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013
S.O. 557. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is, hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule given hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn.
SCHEDULE
Remarks S. O. No. and Date
SI : No. No. and year of the Indian Standards Cancelled
(2)
(1)
1. IS /ISO / IEC 13335-1 (2004) Information Technology-Security Techniques- Management of Information and Communications Technology Security- Part 1 Concepts and models for information and communication technology security management published in the Gazette ofIndia , Part - II , Section -3 , Sub- section ( ii)
(4)
(3)
Base standard has been re- place by ISO / IEC 27005 : 2011 which has already been taken up for adoption as Indian Standard . Withdrawn from 31 December , 2012
[Ref. LITD/G- 75 ]
P. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( LITD)
कोयला मंत्रात्मय
आदेश
नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 558. कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1566 , तारीख 26 अप्रैल , 2012 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप-खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 5 मई , 2012 में प्रकाशित होने पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) में उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के लिए अधिकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का समाधान हो गया है , कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , नागपुर ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है ।
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम 1957 की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में के पूर्वोक्त अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में के पूर्वोक्त अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए, तारीख 5 मई , 2012 से निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-
( 1 ) सरकारी कंपनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानियों और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
(2) सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए उक्त अधि सूचना की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में
756GI /2013-3 1736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे;
(3 ) सरकारी कंपनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी , जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा तथा उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;
( 4) सरकारी कंपनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि में पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी और
( 5 ) सरकारी कंपनी ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या . अधिरोपित किए जाएं , पालन करेगी ।
[फा. सं. 43015/33/2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]
त्री. एस. राणा , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013
S.O. 558. Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , number S. O. 1566 , dated the 26th April , 2012 , in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) , dated the 5th May. 2012 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the land and the rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under subsection ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited , Nagpur ( hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby direct that the said land and the rights in or over the said land so vested shall , with effect from dated the 5th May, 2012 , instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the Government company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely: ....
( 1 ) the Government company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation , interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;
(2) a Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act , for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government company under condition ( 1 ) , and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the Government company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. for or in connection with the rights , in or over the said land , so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company;
( 3 ) the Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;
(4 ) the Government company shall have no power to transfer the land and the rights in or over the said land so vested, to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and
( 5 ) the Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary .
[ F. No. 43015 /33/2009 - PRIW - 11
V. S. RANA , Under Secy .
भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 9, 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 4 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 559.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. - 1 , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 251/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/ 192/99- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi , the 4th February, 2013
S.O. 559. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 251/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - No.I , New Delhi 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 21-1-2013 .
engaged in case of exigencies as casual labour. After 9-11-1996 , he was not engaged by the bank at all . Aggrieved by that act , the daily wager raised a demand for reinstatement in service . When his demand was not conceded to , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The bank contested his claim and as such , conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of failure report , submitted by the conciliation officer, appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L - 12012 / 192/99- IR(B - II ) , New Delhi on 17-11-1999 , with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Chiranji Lal , Peon , with effect from 9-11-996 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
[No. L- 12012/ 192/99 - IR (B- II )]
SHEESH RAM, Section Offiicer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1 , DELHI
1. D. No. 251/2011
Shri Chiranji Lal
S/ o Sh. Mauji , V& P. O. Jharsa
2. The daily wager , namely, Shri Chiranji Lal filed claim statement pleading therein that he was appointed by the bank as peon with effect from 4-8-1993 . He worked at extension counter of the bank , being run at Sector 31-32 Gurgaon , Haryana . Subsequently, that extension counter was upgraded to a regular branch and he worked in that branch too . He rendered continuous service with the bank . Hisservices were abruptly terminated on 9-1-96 without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof. Retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him . Termination of his seivices is violative of provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) . At the time of termination of his service , he was drawing Rs.900.00 per month as his wages . He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
Workman
Gurgaon, Haryana .
Versus
The Dy. General Manager ,
Union Bank of India ,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place ,
GoleMarket,
New Delhi- 110001 .
3.His claim was demurred by the bank pleading that the claimant was never appointed at extension counter at Jharsa Road, Gurgaon . Claim put forward by Shri Chiranji Lal is unfounded . The bank , in order to fill identified vacancies , has to make indent to local . employment exchange for getting names sponsored . When names of candidates are sponsored , they are interviewed and selected candidates are empanelled . They are appointed thereafter against regular or even temporary vacancies . No such procedure ever took place in respect of appointment of the claimant . Since claimant was never appointed by the bank , there was no occasion for him to render continuous service with the bank from 4-8-93 to 9-11-96 . His claim is based on false fact , hence deserves dismissal .
Management
AWARD
A daily wager was appointed on casual basis , in
case ofexigencies at extension counter, being run at Sector 31-32 Gurgaon , Haryana by the Union Bank of India ( in short the bank) . He worked at that counter , as and when engaged. Subsequently, the extension counter was upgraded to a regular branch . In that branch too, he was 4. Vide order No.Z -2019/ 6 /2007 - IR( CM - II ), New Delhi . dated 11-2-2008 , 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, vide order No.L- 12012/192/99 - IR( B - II ) , New Delhi dated 30-3-2011 , by the appropriate Government .
5. Claimant has examined himself in support of his claim. Shri B.B. Gupta , Chief Manager, was examined by the bank to refute the claim . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
been able to establish that he was engaged by the bank to do casual jobs .
6. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Roopesh Sharma , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri Pawan Behl , authorised representative , presented facts on behalf of the bank . 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:
7. Inhis affidavit Ex . WW1 /A , tendered as evidence , claimant swears that he was appointed as a peon by the bank on 4-8-1993 . He wasdirected to work at extension counter located at Sector 31-32 Gurgaon , Haryana . On 25-3-96, full fledged branch was opened at Sector 31-32 Gurgaon , Haryana. He served the bank from 4-8-93 to 9-11-96 continuously. He was drawing a sum of Rs.900.00 per month as his wages . His services were terminated on 9-1-1996 , in an illegal manner. No notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was given to him . He relied photocopy of cash vouchers , which are Ex . WW1 / 1 to Ex . WW1 / 287 in support of his claim . During cross examination , he concedes that he never applied for the postof peon with the bank . He makes a candid admission that his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange for employment with the bank . He had no option but to admit that no document was placed by him to show that he was getting Rs.900.00 per month as his salary.
10. Whether the claimant could project that he rendered continuous service for a period of 240 days in any ofthe calendar year from 1985 till 1994 ? For an answer to this proposition , it wouldbe ascertained as to what continuous services 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 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.1.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 actually worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment .
8. Shri B.B. Gupta swears in his affidavit Ex.MWI /A , tendered as evidence , that the claimant was never appointed by the bank as peon . There was no power with the branch manager to appoint a peon . Claimant was engaged for casual jobs in exigencies . He was paid for that work through payment vouchers . Salary of Rs.900.00 was never paid to him . He admits that on 4-8-1993 , there may be extension counter of the bank at Sector 31-32 , Gurgaon , Haryana.
11. In Ramakrishna Ramnath | 1970 ( 2 ) 1.1.1 306 ] . 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:
9. When facts unfolded by the claimant and Shri Gupta are appreciated, it emerged over the record that the claimant was engaged often and then for casual jobs . His wages were paid through vouchers . Claimant had filed photocopies of certain vouchers , proved as Ex . WW1/ 1 to Ex . WW1 / 287 . When these vouchers are perused , it came to light that certain vouchers , filed by the claimant , are in duplicate or triplicate . When these vouchers are scanned , engagement of the claimant by the bank for casual jobs in exigencies emerges . He was paid through vouchers referred above , as and when his services were availed by the bank. When services of the claimant were availed by the bank in exigencies , it does not lie in its mouth to assert that relationship of employer and employee never existed between the parties . Even a temporary engagement establishes relationship of employer and employee between the parties . Therefore , it is concluded that the claimant has
"Under. Section 25 - B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in anindustry 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 of the employer for 240 days in the year" .
12. When the workman concerned fails to establish that he worked for atleast 240 days in the year, he cannot claim protection against termination ofhis services in order to seek regularization of his services on monthly salary withbenefits like pension , gratuity etc. Interruption ofservice occurred during the course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services . Fiction under Section 25 -B of the Actwill operate ifworkmen has actually worked for 240days in a calendar year. The explanation appended to Section 25B oftheAct specifically includes the days on which workman was laid offunder 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 of and in the course of his employment and in the case of a female, maternity leave , under the expression' actually worked' used undersub - section 2 ofSection 25 B of the Act. Question for consideration comes as to whether the words ' actually worked' would not include holidays , Sundays and Saturdays forwhich full wages are paid. Apex Court was comprehended 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 me workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but must necessarily comprehend all . those daysduringwhich he was in the employment ofthe 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 , ofcalculating the number ofdays 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 ) LLJ 34 ] . Thus , it is crystal clear from the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be included in computing continuous service under Section 25 - B of the Act .
13. In the light of done law, an enquiry would be made as to whether the claimant could establish that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in preceding twelvemonth from the date of his disengagement . To carry out this exercise, evidence is to be scanned . Ocular facts unfolded by the claimant to the effect that he served the bank continuously are self serving words . Therefore these facts are to be appreciated in the light of other evidence , direct or circumstantial . Such evidence is brought over the record in the form of vouchers Ex . WW1 / 1 to Ex . WW1/287. When voucher, referred above , are closely perused in order to ascertain the period for which the claimant has worked with the bank, it came to light that from 9-11-1996 to 8-11- 1995 claimant had worked only for 68 days. Thus it is apparent that in preceding 12 months from the date of alleged termination of his service , the claimant had not rendered continuous service for 240 days . From 29-11-1995 to 9-11- 1994, he had worked for 58 days only. In that period too, he has not rendered continuous service of 240 days to answer the continuity for period of one year service , as contemplated by Section 25B of the Act . Ocular facts , which are in contradiction ofabove documents , are not given any weight . Since continuous service of one year had not been rendered bythe claimant with the bank, he is not entitled for protection ofprovisions of Section 25 -F of the Act . Neither notice nor pay in lieu there was to be given to the claimant . His claim for retrenchment compensation has not ripened . Therefore , it does not lie in the mouth of the claimant to assert that termination ofhis services is violative ofprovisions of Section 25F ofthe Act.
14. It is not a case of the claimant that there were juniors to him , wrose services were retained when he was allegedlybade fare well on 9-11-1996. For want ofevidence inthat regard, it is clear that provisions of Section 25G, ofthe Actwere not to be complied with. It is also not his case that after termination of his service need for casual engagement arose with the bank. No evidence was brought to project that after his retrenchment , the bank employed anyone in casual capacity, without offering him an opportunity for re- employment . Under these circumstances , Provisions of Section 25H of the Act also have no application .
15. In view ofthe reasons detailed, it is crystal clear thataction of the bank nowhere falls within the mischief of the Provisions of Section 25- F, 25-G and 25 - H of the Act . No illegality or unjustifiability can be attributed to the action of the bank , when claimant was not engaged after 9-11-1996 . The claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim is brushed aside . An award is passed in favour of the bank and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 17-12-2012
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 560. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 2) ए सबसैक्शन 2 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर , टेलीकाम डिस्ट्रिक्ट पटियाला एण्ड अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में भिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय- नं. 2 चड़ीगढ़ , के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 207/2011 ) प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं..एल -42025 / 03/2013 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव INDI
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2013
S.O. 560. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (2A , Sub-section 2 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 207/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/cum- Labour Court-No.II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager Telecom District BSNL Patiala and other and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 5-2-2013.
[No. L-42025/03/2013 - IR (DU ) ]
with the management and being less educated and being a daily wager he failed to prove the fact that he had been engaged directly by the management and not through the contractor. He then filed a demand notice before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Chandigarh on 20-2-2011 and since the said demand notice was not adjudicated by the said officer within the prescribed period of 45 days as provided in the, Act, hence , the workman filed the present claim for a declaration from.the Tribunal that he had been engaged directly by the management - department of Telecom and not through contractor . He has also prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits including backwages etc.
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH
Present : SRI A.K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer.
Case No. I. D. 207/2011
Registered on 12-7-2011
Shri Jatinder Pal S/o Sh . Kalu Rami R/ o H.No.53 Nawi Abadi , Ward No.17 , Tehsil Khanna , District- Ludhiana (Punjab).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. General Manager Telecom " District " , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Patiala .
2. Divisional Engineer , Phones (Administration ) O/ o General Manager Telecom " District " ( BSNL ) , Mandi Gobindgarh .
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
Fortheworkman :
None.
The claim was contested and it was stated in the written statement that the workman has no locus standi as he has never been engaged by the department . There is no relationship of master and servant . BSNL enters into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the contractor and the contractor engages the persons for the performance of the job under the contract . The workman was neither engaged as a daily rated mazdoor/chowkidar by the department nor remained on scroll . Therefore the claim petition is frivolous and not maintainable . The workman might have been engaged by the contractor in pursuance of any contract but the BSNL cannot verify evenhis engagement by the contractor as no service record ismaintained by the BSNL in respect of such persons .The workman and nine other persons had filed OA No.671 /PB/ 1999 titled as Pavitter Singh and Others vs. Union of India in the Central Administrative Tribunal for seeking regularization and temporary status in the department but the same was disposed with the direction to the BSNL to consider their cases for grant of temporary status within a period of two months and accordingly the case of the workman was carefully examined and considered as per direction ofthe CAT, Chandigarh Bench and was rejected videorder dated 16-1-2002 . Now the claim ofthe workman ' has no merits .
For the Management : M/ s. Deepali Puri , Advocate .
AWARD
Passed on 19th December. 2012
After filing of the reply by the management the workman did not appear. His counsel also withdrew from the case on 11-6-2012 . The workman failed to appear despite notice sent by registered post to him on 11-6-2012 . Notice not received back undelivered . Hence service was presumed on him.
This is a claim under Section 2A , sub- section (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
Ihaveheard the learned counsel for the management . The workman did not produce any evidence in support of its case . There is no evidence to show that he had been engaged by the management and there was a relationship of master and servant between the ' management and the workman . His claim under Section 2A , sub - section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 therefore fails . It is accordingly rejecte .
According to the workman he had been engaged as daily rated mazdoor/ Safai Karamchari by Divisional Engineer , Phones (Administration ) Department of Telecommunication in March 1997 on muster roll and his services were illegally terminated by the management on 24-5-1983 . The workman and , his other colleagues had approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal andHon'ble High Court but he could not get any relief. In the absence of relevant record regarding his engagement
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer 1/41-
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
SCHEDULE
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of Haripur Colliery of M/ s . ECL in not paying the O.T. wages for the period from April, 91 to Sh . Pravu Prasad and 91 others is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workmen are entitled ? "
का.आ. 561.- 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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/ 1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल -22012/57/1998- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/ 57 / 98 - I.R. (CM - II ) dated 21-10-1998 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 1 of 1999 was registered on 2-2-1999 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.
S.O. 561. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013.
Onperusal ofthe case record , it has been found that the Union/workman is not taking any step since 2007. It seems that the workman is now no more interested to proceed with the case any further . As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award " is hereby passed.
ORDER
[No. L-22012/57/ 1998 - IR (CM - II) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer
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.
REFERENCE No. 15 OF 1999
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013
PARTIES: The management of Haripur Colly. , M/ s . ECL , Burdwan(WB)
Vs. The Treasurer, CMU , Ukhra (WB)
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management :
का.आ. 562. 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 नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 935/ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
For the union (Workman ):
[सं. एल -22012/520/1996- आई आर (सी- II ) ] None None STATE: WEST BENGAL
INDUSTRY : COAL Dated - 3-1-13
बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013 AWARD
S.O. 562. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 935/ 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 In exercise ofpowers 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/ 57/98-1.R. (CM - II ) dated 21-1-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
to the management of FCI and their workman, which was Insupport ofhis case the workman examined himself
received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
while on behalf of the management Karam Chand, Sardar
[No..L - 22012/520 / 1996- IR (C- II)] labour Gang No.1 , FCI and G. Karthikeyan , District
B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer Manager, FCI , Kapurthala were examined . Management
relied on certain papers also .
ANNEXURE
I have heard the AR and the learned counsel for the
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL management and perused the evidence on record.
TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, Management has not denied the employment of the workman
CHANDIGARH
but according to it he is not in the employment of the
Present: Sri A.K Rastogi , Presiding Officer management since 1978. In the written statement it has not
Case No. I. D. 935/2005 beenclarified as to from when the workman is in the employment
of the management . However management - witness G.
Registered on 14-9-2005 Karthikeyan has stated in his affidavit that the workman had
joined the service in 1995. From the affidavit of the workman
Distt. Kapurthala Sh . Harbans Lal S/ o Sh . Shingara , Village , P.O. Sheikh pur, also it appears that earlier he had been working as Handling
Worker on contract basis and became a daily wager of
.... Petitioner management from 29-3-1993 to 31-12-1994 . He alleges tohave
Versus been regularized by management from 1-1-1995 . Thus it is
clear from the evidence of the parties that the workman was in
District Manager , FCI , Kapurthala, Punjab. the employment ofthe management as regular employee since
....Respondent. 1-1-1995 . Learned counsel for the management argued that
theworkman was a casual worker and a contract labour but I
APPEARANCES do not find any basis of this argument.
For the Workman :
Sh . R.K. Singh Parmar, A.R. Theworkman has alleged in his affidavit that he was
For the Management : Sh. Santokh Singh , Advocate . terminated without any order on 9-8-1996 by blocking his
AWARD gate entry into the premises . The management denies his
termination and alleges that he has been absconding since
Passed on 18th January, 2011 1-8-1996 . The AR of the workman argued that even
abandonment is a termination . I am not in agreement with
Central Government vide Notification No. L -22012/ thisargument also. Abandonment or absconding from duty
520/96- IR(C - II) Dated 20.5.1998, by exercising its powers isan act on the part of the employee while termination is an
under Section 10 sub- section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and sub- section act on the part , of an employer. However in Schedule I of
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946
referred to as 'Act' ) has referred the following Industrial "MODEL STANDING ORDERS IN RESPECT OF
dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal: - INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT NOT BEING
" Whether the action of the management of the FCI INDUSTRIAL ' ESTABLISHMENT IN COAL MINES' have
in terminating the services of Sh. Harbans Lal w.e.f. been given. Para 14 of these Standing Orders provide
9-8-1996 is Justified or not ? If so , what relief workman disciplinary action for misconduct . As per sub - para 3 Clause
is entitled to ? " (e) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave
for more than 10 days is a misconduct. Thus the absconding
As per claim statement the workman joined service ofworkman from duty without leave or permission as alleged
in 1978 as a Handling Worker with the respondent but his by the management was a misconduct as per Model
services were terminated on 9-8-1996 without any notice Standing Orders . A misconduct invites disciplinary action
or notice pay. While terminating his services juniors were against the employee and his services can be terminated
retained and even after his termination fresh recruitment after inquiry. But according to the management the services
wasmade and the workman was not given any opportunity of the workman were not terminated . It means that the
to serve. The management did not even join the conciliation workman is still continuing in the servic . With respect to
proceedings in reply to his demand noticedated 24-8-1996. abandonment the law is well settled that an inference can
The workman has claimed reinstatement with continuity of be arrived by taking of totality of circumstances . According
service and back wages . to the management the workman had been absconding
The claim was contested by the management and it since 1-8-1996 . It is important to note that the workman's
was denied that the workman had joined the services in demand notice dated 24-8-1996 shows that he served the
1978. It was also denied that his services were terminated demand notice within a month ofhis alleged absence . Under
on 1-8-1996 . According to the management the workman the circumstances even the absence of the workman should
has been absconding since 1-8-1996 without any intimation not have been treated as an act of abandonment.
orleave . Abandonment can be inferred only when there is evidence
that the workman has no intention to return to work .
1743
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Vs.
Anyway, since the management itself is denying the
termination of the service of the workman , hence the The Org. Secy., UCMU, Burdwan(WB)
occasion of adjudging the justification of the referred Representatives:
termination does not arise . The workman is entitled to be
treated to be continuing in service and if he reports for For the Management : Sri P. K. Goswami ,
duty within one month from the publication of the award Ld . Advocate
the management will take him on duty as before and since For the Union (Workman) : Sri Sushil Banerjee ,
the workman is to be treated in continuing service, he is Ld. Representative
entitled to the back wages .
INDUSTRY : COAL State:West Bengal
Dated-15-1-13
AWARD
Though there is no evidence that the workman was gainfully employed after his alleged termination but at the same time it is also not possible that during this period he remained without any livelihood . I therefore find him entitled to 40 per cent back wages . The reference is answered in favour of the workman. Let two copies ofthe award be sent to the Central Government with a copy to the District Judge , Kapurthala .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer
In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of me Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) Govt . of Int through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/ 25/2008 - IR ( CM - II) dated 19-6-2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . ECL in not regularizing the services of Shri Dipen Chattaraj Canteen Manager w e.f 1-4-1999 is legal and justified ? To what reliefthe workman concerned isentitled to ?"
का.आ. 563 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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 31/ 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -22012 /25 /2008- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/25 / 2008 ) I.R. ( CM - II ) dated 19-06-2008 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No 31 of2008 was registered on 01-07-2008 and accordingly anorder 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 .
S.O. 563.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bankola Area of M/ s . ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
[No. L-22012/25/2008 - IR (CM- II) ]
B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Onperusal ofthe case record , it has been found that Sri Sushil Banerjee , Ld . Representative of the Union , files a petition along with a copy of Death Certificate of the workman praying for withdrawal of the case as the workman has expired on 18-6-2010. Since the workman has expired and the Union wants to withdraw the case , the case is dismissed as withdrawn . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award " is hereby passed.
ORDER
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 31 of2008
Let an "Award " be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing. Send the copies ofthe order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for Information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
Parties:
JAY ANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer
The management of Tilabony Colly. M/s ECL. Burdwan
756 GI/2013-4 1744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2013 /PHALGUNA 18, 1934
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013
Secretary
Transport & Dock Workers Union
P. D'mello Bhawan
P. D'mello Road
Carnac Bunder
Mumbai -400038
का.आ. 564.-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 नं. 2 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 34/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
APPEARANCES :
For The Employees Mr. B. J. Sawant , Advocate [सं. एल-22015/06/2007- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी For The Workman : Mr. Venkatesh Swami , Representative.
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
Mumbai dated the 10th January, 2013
AWARD
S.O. 564. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. - 2, Mumbai , 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 12-2-2013.
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L-22015/ 6/2007 - IR ( CM - II ), dated. 30-07-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
[No. L-22015/06/2007 - IR (C - II) ] Β.Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑΙK , Section Offcer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI
"Whether the demand of the Transport and Dock Workers ' Union , Mumbai for absorption of all Contract Workers working at FCI Depot , Ratnagiri as permanent Departmental Workers and also to decide their wages in consultation with the Union is legal & justified? If so, to what relief these contract workers entitled to ?" Present : K.B. KATKE , Presiding Officer Reference No. 2/34 of 2007
Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India & Ors
(1 ) The General Manager Food Corparation of India Dheeraj Arma Building, 2nd floor Anant Kanekar Marg Near ONGC, Bandra ( E ) Mumbai -400051
(2) After receipt of the order of reference from Ministry, notices were served on the parties . In response to the notice, second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex- 3 along with documents . First party management filed their written statement at Ex -9 . Issues were framed at Ex-13 and matter was fixed for evidence of the management . Today second party union filed application ( Ex - 23 ) stating thatboth parties have reached a settlement on 09-01-2013 and prayed to dispose of the reference as withdrawn . In the circumstances , I think it proper to dispose of the reference . Thus the order :
ORDER
Inview of consent terms filed with Ex - 23 , reference stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to cost.
( 2) Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India , Regional Office Mistry Bhavan , Dinshaw Wachha Road Mumbai 400020
Date: 10th January, 2013
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer Ex -No . 23 (3) Zonal Manager Food Corporation of India
Mistry Bhavan , Dinshaw Wachha Road
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT MUMBAI
Ref. No .: CGIT - 2/34/2007
Mumbai 400 020. AND Theirworkmen.
Employers in relation to the Management of Food Corporation of India FirstParty [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii
And TheirWorkmen
Through Transport ' Dock Workers ' Union , Mumbai , P. D' mello Bhavan , P. D ' mello road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai - 38
SecondParty
reference No. 2/34 of 2007 is still pending at the said Tribunal . The union further approached the CACLB under Section 10 of I.D Act . to abolish the contract system in the said depot. After investigation , the said Board has abolished contract labour system in said depot from 03-07-2007. However the contract continued in operation till date , due to status que order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR :
Both Parties have reached the Settlement on 9th January. 2013. Hence , wish to withdraw this matter . Annexed herewith a copy of Settlement dated 9th January, 2013 and marked Annexure ' A' . In view of the Terms of Settlement, this matter may kindly be disposed of as withdrawn.
Venkatesh Swami ,
TheMinistry of Consumer Affairs , Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of India, vide letter No. 1911 /26/2009- FC-3 dtd . 05-07-2011 has declared to introduce No Work No Pay System (NWNP) to labours working at Ratnagiri depot like other depots of Kerala Region . This was offered to the said Union vide letter dtd . 11-08-2011 but the Union has declined the offer vide letter No. FCI . 11/716/2011 dtd . 30-08-2011.
Secretary,
TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS ' UNION , MUMBAI .
Mumbai, Dated: 10-01-2013.
MEMORENDUM OF SETTLEMENT
The Corporation on its part further pursued the issue with the said union and the union vide letter dtd. 07-09- 2012 has agreed to discuss the issue' and accordingly during lastmeeting held on 18-10-2012 has mutually agreed to settle the matter as under .
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Under Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules 1977 read with Section 18 ( 1 ) of I.D Act . 1947 arrived at Mumbai on 9th January 13 for implementation of No Work No Pay System at Ratnagiri depot .
Name of the parties
Representing Workmen
Representing employer
(1) Shri Kishor Kotwal , Vice. President
( 1 ) Shri D. R. Paramesh , Genl . Manager(M )
1. It is agreed by both the parties that the workers will be inducted in NWNP system as per guidelines of Government/ FCI Head Quarters , New Delhi based on the capacity of the Depot and three years turn over which comes to 124 handling and 8 ancillary labours including Tindel and Mukadam for all the operations from the list of workers working in the said depot , for last 12 months . The Corporationwill not take any responsibility of any excess workers other than the above .
(2) Shri Nivruti Dhumal , Secretary
(2) Shri J.S. Syju , Dy. Genl . Manager (M)
(3) Shri Venkatesh Swami, JointSecretary
(3) Smt D. Sridevi , A.GM. (IR- L)
(4) Shri C. B. Patil , Dy. Secretary,
(4) Shri Saurabh Nitin , A.G.M. ( Finance ) ,
(5) Shri Balu Khade Organizer
(5) Shri Biju B. , A.GM (Finance)
Transport &. Docks workers Union Mumbai .
(6) Shri Syed Qyamuddin , Manager ( IR-L),
Food Corporation of India Regional Office (Maha. ) , Mumbai.
2. It is agreed by both the parties that as per Head Quarters guidelines revision will be based on the % increase inAll India Consumer Price Index (AICPI ) for every two years . Accordingly, the revision for the year April 2009 (after the expiry of contract) & April 2011 will be notionally calculated @ASOR % 388% and 505% respectively. For basic operation , as per the latest revised ASOR will be Rs. 3.63 /per bag which shall be effective up to the next revision due in April 2013. The details of the calculation were shown to the union during the meeting held on 18-10-2012 .
SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE
3.All other benefits will be extended as applicable to this scheme as per Head Quarters guidelines regarding service conditions vide letter No. IR( L)/ 3 (7 )/ 99 - vol. Vil dtd. 10-08-2012 (copy enclosed) or modified from time to time.
4.All payments including wages to NWNP system workers would be made directly by FCI through ECS/ Account payee cheque .
5.The Corporation had further stated that all these would be applicable only after the union withdraws all the pending Court cases/ litigation in various Court/ Labour/ Industrial Courts .
The handling and ancillary workers working in the depot of Food Corporation of India (FCI ) here in after referred to as " The Corporation " at Ratnagiri through Kolhapur Sahakari Majur & Hamali Sanstha Ltd. Kolhapur , since 1998 and affiliated with the Transport & Docks Workers Union , Mumbai here in after referred to as " The union ". The union has filed a writ petition No. 554/2005 in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which was disposed off by directing the Corporation not to terminate the services of workers and referred the case to the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal ( CGIT ) for further adjudication . The said case seized by the CGIT under [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , MUMBAI 6. The union representatives present in the meeting agreed that they would submit their documents as proof of having withdrawn the Court case/ Industrial Tribunal at the earliest to enable the Corporation to implement. the NWNP system in the depot of Ratnagiri .
JUSTICE GS . SARRAF Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 1 /24 OF 2006 This agreement shall be effective from the date of submission of withdrawal of all Court cases from all legal forums by the Union .
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. This settlement is arrived at Mumbai on 9th January 2013
And
Representing Employer Reprsenting the Workman
TheirWorkman ( Benzamin Sudnyan Kale )
Appearances :
(1) Shri Kishor Kotwal Vice President .
(1) Shri D. R. Paramesh Dy. Genl . Manager(M)
For the Management : Shri .Kantharia, Adv.
For the workman
(2) Shri S. J. Syju , Dy. Genl . Manager (M)
(2) Shri Nivruti Dhumal , Secretary
State
:Ms.Mulani , Adv. :Maharashtra
(3) Smt . D. Srideri , A. G M. (IR- L)
(3) Venkatesh Swami JointSecretary
Mumbai , dated the 17th day ofAugust , 2011 . AWARD PART - 1 (4) Shri Saurabh Nitin , A.G.M. (Finance)
(4) Shri C. B. Patil , Dy. Secretary
(5) Shri Biju B. , A.G.M. (Finance)
(5) Shri .Balu Khade . Organizer
1.This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows: Disputes Act 1947 .
(6) Shri Syed Qyamuddin , Manager(IR- L)
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Power Corporation of India , Mumbai in dismissing the services of Shri Benzamin Sudnyan Kale w.e.f.28-3-2005 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?
का.आ. 565.-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 नं. । मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 24/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -42012/257/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
S.O. 565. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Nuclear Power Corporation of India, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
[No. L-42012/257/2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] Β.Μ. PATNAIK, Section Offcier
Briefly stated the facts are that the second party workman was appointed as Helper ' A ' vide order dt.5-9-2002 . A complaintdt.3-2-2003 was received from a lady employee Ms.Manisha Rogannawar, Steno - II that while travelling to Mankhurd in Maruti Van on 30-1-2003 the second party workman misbehaved with her physically. The matter was then referred to the Sexual Harassment ComplaintCommittee ' which was constituted in accordance with the guidelines laid down by honourable Supreme Court for redressal ofthe complaints made for sexual harassment ofwomen employees at the work place. The committee came to the conclusion that the incident had occurred and the complaint made by Ms.Manisha Rogannawar was genuine. The committee recommended disciplinary action against the second party workman . The second party workman was placed under suspension vide orderdt.7-2- 2003 and a memorandum of chargesdt.8-4-2003 was served on him by the disciplinary authority. Smt.J.V.Femandes , Senior Manager ( F & A) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Y.N.Kamble , Asstt . Manager ( P & IR ) was appointed as the Presenting Officer . The Enquiry Officer submitted her reportdt.2-12-2004 according to which charges were proved against the second party workman . A [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(1 ) Whether the enquiry is fair and proper ?
(2) Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are preverse?
7. The above two issues may be decided together .
copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the second party workman for representation/submission, if any, he wished to make against the report . The workman submitted a representation dt. 5-1-2005 . Vide order dt. 28-3-2005 of the disciplinary authority penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the second party workman . The second party workman preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal but the appellate authority by orderdt. 23-8-2005 rejected the appeal and confirmed the penalty of Dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority.
8. Learned counsel for the workman has argued that the workman was not allowed to be present when the statement of the complainant was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer did not give to the second party workman an opportunity to cross - examine the complainant and, therefore , the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated and as such the enquiry report deserves to be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the first party has vehemently contended that in cases of sexual harassment denial of opportunity of cross - examination to the delinquent cannot be considered violation of principles of natural justice because such cases need to be considered with the highest possible sensitivity keeping in mind the modesty and dignity ofthe female employee. He has placed reliance on AIR 1997 SC3011 , (1997) 2 SCC 534, AIR 1984 SC 273 , AIR 1974 SC 1360 and AIR MP278 .
3.According to the statement of claim submitted by the second party workman when the Marutivan was approaching the destination the second party workman got ready to get down but unexpectedly the driver of the Maruti Van applied sudden brake at the speed braker and thereby the second party workman lost his balance and his right hand fell on the front seat where Ms.Manisha Rogannawar was seated and his left hand fell on her shoulder. What suddenly happened was purely involuntary and had happened due to sudden application of brake by the driver. The momentary physical contact attributable to the sudden application of brake resulted in losing his balance and, therefore, it was neither intentional nor purposeful . The second party workman expressed his honest and genuine regrets to the lady and begged to be excused and forgiven but the lady slapped him on his face. According to the statement of claim the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Ms.Manisha Rogannawar in private and the second party workman was not given a chance to ask any question in cross - examination which is aclear violation of principles of natural justice . The second party workman, therefore , prayed that he be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.
10. Ithas been admitted in the written statement filed bythe Management that the Enquiry Officer did not allow the second party workman to cross - examine the complainant. The Enquiry Officer J.C. Fernandes has also stated in her cross examination, " In the enquiry held by me I recorded the statement of complainant Ms. Manisha Rogannawar but on her request I did not allow the workman andthe Presenting Officer to be present when the statement ofthe complainant was recorded. On the day on which the statement of the complainant was recorded the workman was not given an opportunity to cross - examine her. It is thus clear that the workman was not allowed to be present when the statement of the complainant was recorded and he was not given any opportunity to cross - examine her.
4.According to the written statement the findings of the enquiry officer are based on cogent reasons and correct evaluation of evidence . The enquiry officer personally recorded the statement of Ms. Manisha Rogannawar in her chamber keeping in view the sensitivity involved and the very fact that a female while narrating such a bad experiencewould feel humiliated, and on the request ofthe complainant, the Enquiry Officer took a conscious decision not to allow the second party workman to cross - examine the complainant . According to the written statement the second party workman is not entitled to any relief.
11. In this matter the workman has consistently from the beginning disputed the version of the complainant . Secondly, the story narrated by the complainant Manisha Rogannawar does not find place in the complaintdt . 3-2-2003 Ex . M-3 . In the statement before the Enquiry Officer the complainant has stated that she felt some movement on her left breast and when she turned left to see what was happening then she saw the hand of the delinquent on her breastwhereas in the complaint Ex . M -3 she has only stated that the workman misbehaved with her physically. Thirdly, the statement of the driver has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer but he does not say anything about the main story apparently because he was driving.
5. The second party workman has filed an affidavit on 16-4-2007 and a fresh affidavit on 14-2-2011 and he has been cross - examined by learned counsel for the first party. The second party has filed an affidavit of the Enquiry Officer Smt . J.V. Fernandes , Dy. G.M. ( F& A) and she has been cross - examined by learned counsel for the second partyworkman.
12. This is correct that in cases of sexual harassment denial of opportunity of cross - examination to the delinquent by itself may not amount to violation of principles ofnatural justice provided no prejudice has been 6. Heard Learned counsels for the parties on the following preliminary issues .
1748
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
TheGeneral Manager
caused to the delinquent by the procedure followed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this matter I am clearly of the view that the denial of opportunity to cross- examine the complainant has certainly caused prejudice to theworkman.
Hindustan Insecticides Limited P.O. Rasayani Distt. Raigad MS . 410207 .
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
13. For the reasons stated above the enquiry conducted against the workman cannot be said to the fair and proper and I also find the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse .
Mr. Vijay Atmaram Thakur KL 4/4/3 , Sector 6E Kalamboli
14. Both the issues are , therefore , decided against the Management.
Navi Mumbai - 410218 .
15. The first party is given an opportunity to prove the charge against the workman Benzamin Sudnyan Kale by leading evidence before this Tribunal which the case befixed on 16th September 2011 .
APPEARANCES : FOR THE EMPLOYER Mr. A. M. Jalisatgi , Advocate. FOR THE WORKMEN Mr. M. B. Anchan , Advocate . Mumbai , dated the 1st January, 2013.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L -42012/ 131 /2001 - IR( CM - II), dated 29-01-2002 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 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
का.आ. 566. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान इनसेक्टीसाईड लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 16/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/131/ 2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. , Rasayani in dismissing Mr. Vijay Atmaram Thakur from services w. e.f. 14-06-1996 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief he is entitled to ?"
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
S.O. 566. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
[No. L-42012/131 /2001 - IR ( CM- II) ]
Β.Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑΙK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer
2.After receipt of the reference , parties were served with notices . In response to the notice the second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex - 9 .According to him , he was recruited by the first party as a Store Keeper . He was active office bearer of the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Rasayani Employees Union . He was also Vice President ofthe said union in the year 1984. The management did not like it and they had a grudge against him. He was refused loan for purchase of scooter though he was entitled for the same . Therefore workman approached Civil Court and the matter was amicably settled . In 1990 there was theft oftwo bearings worth Rs . 2.5 lakhs . The management started preliminary inquiry. The workman gave a written statement stating that the Head of the Department was responsible for the same. Thereafter management stopped the inquiry. Even police complaint was not lodged . Those bearings were not traced out . Due to the said incident management was again annoyed .
REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2 / 16 of 2002
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDE LTD .
3. In the year 1989 designation of the workman was changed from Store Keeper to Store Supervisor . From August 1990 he was not allotted any work . Even other workers were stopped from talking to him . In 1993 they ordered the workman to vacate his quarter. On his complaint
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
supervisory cadre of first party company. The second party
to Industrial Court, Thane, Court restrained the management was not workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of I. D.
from evicting him . He was required to call the police to Act1947. Therefore reference is not maintainable .
restore the water supply to his quarters . They also started
illegally recovering subsidy granted to him on his house 6.The second party employee was terminated after
loan. The management was insisting the workman to holding fair and proper inquiry . There is no substance in
apologise for his deeds and made it clear that otherwise he thedispute raised by the second party. The reference is hit
would be transferred to Delhi to teach him a lesson . They by principle of delay and laches as it was raised after six
finally transferred him to Delhi by their order dated years from the date of allege cause of action i.e. from the
17/06/1993 without any promotion . The workman was not dateof order of dismissal dated 14-06-1996.
given transfer T.A. advance to transport his house hold 7. The second party employee was serving as a
goods . He was not given accommodation at Delhi . The
transfer was malafied act of the management . The workman Supervisor in Rasayani Factory . Vide its order dtd .
was relived from Rasayani unit . However transfer was 17-06-1993 , Company transferred him to Regional Sales
malafied, workman filed a complaint before Industrial Court Office at Delhi . He was also relieved from duty w.e.f.
Mumbai who stayed his transfer and granted him 50% of 28-06-1993 . He was supposed to report at Delhi on
his wages. The said order was challenged before High 16-07-1993 . However the second party did not report for
Court . Hon'ble High Court allowed 100% wages and hisduties and remained unauthorisedly absent . He filed a
remanded the matter to decide the jurisdiction of Industrial case challenging the order of his transfer before Industrial
Court . The Industrial Court held that Central Government Tribunal , Thane . Thane Court granted interim stay.
is the appropriate Government and dismissed the complaint. However finally Court dismissed the complaint and vacated
The writ ofthe workman was also dismissed . The workman the interim stay. Inspite of that second party did not report
thenapproached to ALC © . He was transferred to Delhi hisduty. Therefore the second party was charge sheeted
for absence without leave or without sufficient cause and
merely for harassment .
for breach of service rules for managerial and supervisory
4. Though workman had never resumed at Delhi employees . Mr. S.C. Baluja was appointed as inquiry officer
inquiry against him was initiated at Delhi . Workman and the inquiry officer held detailed inquiry in accordance
requested to initiate inquiry at Rasayani where he was with service rules and in compliance with the principles of
working . However his request was turned down . Due to natural justice . The second party was given ample
financial restrain he could not attend the inquiry proceeding opportunities to remain present and defend himself in the
atDelhi . He could not cross examine the witnesses at Delhi . inquiry. The second party deliberately remained absent
He also could not examine his witnesses from Rasayani . and deliberately did not participate in the inquiry
The inquiry was exparte and in violation of principles of proceeding . The management examined witnesses in
natural justice. The charge sheet was issued by General support of the charges levelled against second party. On
Manager who was not competent authority as Chairman conclusion of the inquiry, I O submitted his report and
was the competent authority. Therefore charge is illegal . findings to the management . The copy of the inquiry
Therefore inquiry is vitiated . The inquiry was not fair and proceedings as well as report and findings were given to
proper. The findings of the inquiry officer are perverse. the second party for his comments . The second party
The workman was not given opportunity . No show cause submitted his comments vide letter dtd. 10-05-1996 . The
notice was given to him before dismissing him from the competent authority after going through the contentions
services . Thus the order of dismissal is illegal . The workman raised by second party and considering the gravity of
is unemployed since the date of his dismissal . Therefore misconduct proved in the inquiry also looked into the past
workman prays that the inquiry be declared unfair and record and passed an order dismissing second party from
improper and findings of the inquiry officer be declared service w.e.f. 14-06-1996 . The said order of dismissal is
perverse and the management be directed to reinstate him legal ,just and proper.
in service with full back wages and continuity of service. 8. The inquiry was fair and proper. Principles of
5. The first party management resisted the naturaljustice were followed . They denied all the allegations
statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex - 11 . made by the workman . They pointed out number of
According to them , the second party was dismissed from incidents of other misconducts ofthe employee . According
service when he was employee of Regional Sales Office , to them scooter loan was sanctioned to the employee in
Delhi . He was not employee at Rasayani Plant , Maharashtra. 1985. He obtained the loan however did not purchase the
Therefore the ALC Mumbai as well as this Industrial vehicle for two years . Therefore the first party was
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference . constrained to recover the loan from the second party.
Secondly they contended that the second party employee Against the, said action , second party approached Civil
was not a workman . He was serving as a Supervisor in Court, Khalapur . However court dismissed the same on the
Stores and was drawing salary exceeding Rs . 4000 p.m. pointofjurisdiction . According to them the second party
The service rules applicable to him were managerial and
1750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
that the second party was doing the supervisor and managerial duties as he has not denied that he was designated as a Supervisor.
has suppressed the true facts . The theft case was lodged bythe company.All the concerned Stores Supervisors were directed to give list of inventories of the material . Others gave necessary list . However second party refused to give the details and did not co- operate in finding out missing items . Some steel pipes and bearings were stolen from the stores . Company immediately lodge complaint to Police . Police authorities recovered the pipe and bearings near the factory premises . The incident had taken place during the tenure of second party as Store Supervisor . Lapses on the part of second party in discharging his duties were also noticed by the inquiry committee. The allegations of second party are false, baseless and concocted. They denied that he was transferred in order to harass him . According to them, second party had abused Personnel Manager in filthy language when he was taking round and entered in the cabin of V. A. Thakur . They pointed out number of irregularities and misbehaviour of the second party . According to them , the inquiry officer has given sufficient opportunity to the second party. However the second party has not given names of his witnesses . The averments in the statement of claim are totally false and frivolous . Therefore first party prays that the reference be rejected with cost.
12. The Id . adv. further submitted that this point was raisedbefore Industrial Tribunal , Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 417/1993 wherein Industrial Court Thane had dealt with. the issue as to whether the second party was workman as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgement of Industrial Court is produced on record at Ex- 33 wherein issue No. 3 was framed . Though it was framed as whether complainant is an employee within the Section 3 (5 ) of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 , the discussion in this issue is whether the complainant is workman as defined under Section 2 ( s) of I.D. Act. After elaborate discussion of more than 20 pages ,ges , it was held that the complainant was not 'workman ' as defined under Section 2 ( s ) of the 1 D Act but he was a Supervisor and not employee as defined under Section 3 (5 ) of MRTU & PULP Act . Though in that judgement it was held that the appropriate Government was Central Government , however in issue No. 4 in this judgement , it was held that the said Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint . The said judgement was not challenged and the findings therein are still in force . Therefore it cannot be said that the said judgement of Industrial Court , Thane was without jurisdiction . In that judgement it was held that the second party was not workman .
9. The second party filed his rejoinder at Ex- 15 . He denied all the allegations made by the first party in their written statement and reiterated that inquiry was not fair and proper and he was victimised .
10. My Ld . Predecessor has framed the following three issues as preliminary issues . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
13. From the record and designation and duties of the second party mentioned herein it is revealed that he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act . On the other hand he was performing his duties in a supervisory and managerial nature . Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the negative .
No.
1. Whether second party is a
Issue no . 2 :-
'workman ' as defined under Section
2 ( s) of I.D. Act 1947 ?
2. Whether the inquiry is fair and proper ? Yes .
3. Whether the findings of the Inquiry
No.
Officer are perverse?
REASONS
Issue no . 1 :-
11. It is the case of the second party that though his designation was changed , as Supervisor , he was doing the same work as a Store Keeper. As against this it was argued on behalf of the first party that the second party was promoted as Supervisor and he was performing supervisory and managerial duties. The burden was on the second party to show that he was not working as a Supervisor but continued to work as Storekeeper even after promotion . The second party has not led any evidence to that effect . Therefore it is submitted that there is no harm in believing
14.As the second party is held not workman as defined under Section 2 ( s ) of the I.D. Act , the reference is not tenable . However as issue is framed and evidence is led it is necessary to discuss the same and give findings on these issues . In respect of fairness of inquiry the second party contended that he was not given opportunity either to cross examine the witnesses of the first party or led his evidence .According to him the first party transferred him from Rasayani to their sales office at Delhi with malafied intention and in order to harass him fore he did not joinhis duty at Delhi . According to second party the first party had deliberately kept the inquiry at their office at Delhi instead of at Rasayani . Therefore he could not attend the inquiry proceeding at Delhi . In this respect the Id . adv. for the first party submitted that the transfer of the second party to Delhi was not malafied act . The same point was raised by the second party in the complaint ( ULP) No. 417/ 1993 before Industrial Court , Thane . The issue to that effect was framed by the said Court and the said issue no . 5 was decided by the said court in the negative . The court held [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
back drop I come to the conclusion that, neither there are any procedural lapses nor inquiry officer has violated the principles of natural justice . Thus I decide this issue no. 2 in the affirmative that the inquiry was fair and proper.
Issue no . 3: -
that , the transfer was not malafied or in order to harass the second party. In the circumstances, Id. adv. submitted that the said judgement Ex - 33 has reached to its finality. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Industrial Court, Thane is binding . on the parties . Therefore he submitted that the second party now cannot be allowed to say that he was transferred to Delhi with a malafied intention and in order to harass him . The Id . adv. submitted that the version of the second party cannot be taken into account that as his transfer was with malafied intention therefore he did not join his duty at Delhi .
17. In respect of findings of inquiry officer I would like to point out that , the inquiry is found to be fair and proper. The second party admittedly did not join his duties atDelhi . Therefore inquiry officer rightly held him guilty of misconduct for remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty. Therefore the findings of inquiry officer are as per the evidence on record . Thus the same cannot be called perverse . In the circumstances , it needs no further discussion decide this issue no . 3 in to the negative .
18. The second party is held not workman . The same finding was also recorded earlier by Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 417/1993 . The said Court had also recorded the findings that the transfer of the second party to Delhi from Rasayani was not malafied act of the management . The copy ofjudgement of Thane Industrial Court is on record at Ex- 33 . The said judgement was pronounced on 29-07-1995. That appears the reason for delay ofsix years in raising this dispute . The first party has raised the plea of delay and laches . However, unfortunately no issue to that effect was framed. As the second party is held not workman, the reference is not tenable and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of deciding the preliminary issues . There is no point in proceeding to decide the other issues as vital preliminary issue is decided against the second party. Thus 1 dismiss the reference and proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
The reference is dismissed with no order as to cost . Date: 01-01-2013
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013 15. In this respect Id . adv. for the first party further submitted that the second party has not disputed that he never reported at Delhi after his transfer from Rasayani by orderdt. 17-06-1993 . He has also not disputed that he was served with the charge sheet . He has admitted in his cross at Ex - 17 that he was served with charge sheet dtd. 16-11-1993 . He has also admitted that he was asked to attend the inquiry from time to time on the said charge sheet . He further.admitted in his cross that he did not attend the inquiry. He further says in his cross that he do not remember whether he was served with the inquiry report and findings . The second party has also admitted inhis crossat Ex- 17 that he was relieved from Rasayani to join Delhi . In the circumstances the Id . adv. for the first party rightly argued that the second party was served with charge sheet and was directed to appear before the inquiry officer. He did not attend the inquiry proceedings by saying that his transfer was effected with malafied intention to harass him . The point of malafied intention was decided by Thane Industrial Court in the negative . In the circumstances the second party had no reason to remain absent before the inquiry officer at Delhi . The reason given by him is unacceptable . In short the management and Inquiry officer have complied with the procedure of inquiry by serving the second party with charge sheet and informing him the dates of hearing . The workman remained wilfully absent . As workman remained wilfully and deliberately absent , therefore , it cannot be said that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself. Thus question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. In the circumstances , it cannot be siad that there is violation ofprinciples of natural justice.
का.आ. 567.-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 ( आई डी संख्या 41/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/05/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
S.O. 567- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 16. In this respect Id . adv. for the first party further pointed out that Industrial Court Thane in its judgement at Ex-33 held that the transfer of the second party to Delhi from Rasayani was not with malafied intention or in order to harass him . In this backdrop the workman cannot raise thedispute or justify his absence before the inquiry officer. Inspite of intimation ofdate of inquiry he wilfully remained absent . Therefore inquiry officer proceeded exparte . He recorded the evidence of the witnesses and held the second party guilty for remaining absent from duty without permission and without any reason since June 1993. In this
756GI/2013-5 1752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
contentions against thefirst party and that it does not press its statement of claim and therefore , an appropriate award be passed in this matter.
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2006) 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 12-2-2013 .
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.
[No. L -42012/05/2005 - IR (C- II ) ] Β.Μ. PATNAIK, Section Officer
Award is passed accordingly.
ANNEXURE
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013 BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT 1/41 OF 2006 .
का.आ. 568. 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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 12/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Parties : Employers in relation.to the management of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers And Their workmen
Appearances:
For the Management Mr.Alva, Adv.
[सं. एल-22012/88/2008- आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th February , 2013
For the Union
Mr.R.D. Bhatt, Adv.
For the 69 workmen Mr.J. P. Sawant, Adv.
State
Maharashtra
Mumbai , dated the 8th day of January, 2013
AWARD
S.O. 568.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
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 .
[No. L- 22012/ 88/2008 - IR (CM - II ) ] Β.Μ. PATNAIK , Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer Reference No. 12 of 2009 (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 of the Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizers Limited?
Parties: The management of Nimcha( R) Colly, M/ s . ECL. Burdwan(WB) Vs.
(2) Whether the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit A should be declared as permanent workers and wages and consequential benefits to be paid to concerned workers?
The Gen. Secy. , KMC , Asansol (WB )
Representatives :
Sri P.K. Goswami , Ld . Advocate Forthe management:
2. An application was filed on 21-11-2012 by 69 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.
For the union (Workman ) : Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld . Representative
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
Dated - 01-01-13
3. Another application has been filed today by the President, Mumbai Shramik Sangh stating theirin that the second party is not interseted in pursuing its claim and [भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
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 Minsitry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 88 /2008 - IR (CM - II ) dated 03-03-2009 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal:
S.O. 569. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2006) )of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/ s . ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
SCHEDULE
[No. L- 22012/342/2005 - IR (CM - II ) ] B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the management of Nimcha (R) Colliery by not providing employment to the son of Late Vikrama Choudhury consequent upon his attaining the age of 18 years is legal and justified? To what relief is she entitled?"
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 63 of 2006
Parties: The management of Bahula Colly, M/s . ECL , Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy. , KMC , Asansol ( WB)
Representatives:
Sri P. K. Das , Ld . Advocate
For the management:
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/88/ 2008 - IR(CM - II ) dated 03-03-2009 ofthe above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 12 of 2009 was registered on 27-03-2009 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 ofthe said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned..
For the union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey, Ld. Representative
State: West Bengal
Industry: Coal
Dated- 03-01-13
AWARD
Onperusal of the case record, it has been found that Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld . Representative ofthe Union, submits that the dependant of the workman has already joined in service. Since the dependant of the workman has already joined in service, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.
ORDER
Inexercise 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 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Government of India through the Minsitry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/342/2005 - IR(CM - II) dated 05-09-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal:
Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing . 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.
SCHEDULE
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Kartick Dhangar, U.G. Loader, U.M. No. 532161 w.e.f. 2-9-2004 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
का.आ. 569. 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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 63/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Having received the Order of Letter No. L- 22012/ 342/2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 05-09-2006 of the above said reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 63 of 2006 was registered on 25-09-2006 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 [सं. एल -22012/342/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी [PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ]
Representatives:
None
Forthe management:
documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .
Forthe union ( Workman) : None
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
Dated- 02-01-13
AWARD
Onperusal ofthe case record, it has been found that Sri S. K. Pandey, Ld . Representative of the Union , submits that the workman has already joined in service and prayed for the closure ofthe case . Since the workman has already joined in service , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award " is hereby passed.
ORDER
Inexercise 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 ( 14 of 1947 ), Government of India through the Minsitry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/381 / 99 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 10-02-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal :
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as " No Dispute " existing. 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.
SCHEDULE
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the managerment of J.K. Nagar Colliery, Satgram Area of ECL. in terminating the services of Sh. Kahar on 23-05-95 without employing the Court's Order isjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"
का.आ. 570.-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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 29/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/381/1999- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
Having received the Order of Letter No. L -22012/ 381/99 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 10-02-2000 of the above said reference fromthe Govemmer of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 29 of 2000 was registered on 13-03-2000 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 . Inpursuancersuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
S.O. 570.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 29/2000 )ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
On perusal of the case record , it has been found that the Union/workman is not taking any step since 2002. It seems that the workman is now no more interested to proceed with the case any further. As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.
ORDER
[No. L- 22012/381 / 1999 - IR (CM - II ) ] Β.Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑΙK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing . 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.
Present: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 29 of2000
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
Parties: The management of J. K. Nagar Colly, M/s . ECL Burdwan (WB)
Vs.
The Treasurer, CMU (INTUC), Asansol ( WB)
का.आ. 571. 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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 10/1998 ) को [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/380/1997- आई आर (सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
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 postwere sent to the parties concerned .
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
Onperusal ofthe case record , it has been found that theworkman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 6-09-2005 . It seems that the workman has now no more interest to proceed with the case any further. Hence the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .
ORDER
S.O. 571. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
[No.L- 22012/380/1997 - IR (C- II) ] B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing . 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 , 12 फरवरी , 2013
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer
Reference No. 10 of 1998
Parties: The management of North Siarsol Colly, M /s . ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Org . Secy. , CMS, Asansol (WB)
का.आ. 572. 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 मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 74/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Representatives:
Sri P. K. Das , Ld. Advocate
For the management:
[सं. एल -22012/504/1999- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
For the union (Workman): None
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
State: West Bengal
Industry: Coal
Dated - 10-01-13
AWARD
S.O. 572.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour CourtAsansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe employers in relation to management of ECL their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
[No. L -22012/504 / 1999 - IR (C- II )] B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer 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 ( 14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Minsitry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/380/97 - IR ( CM - II) dated 20-05-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal :
ANNEXURE
SCHEDULE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
"Whether the action of the management in dismissing Sh . Anju Thakur, Conveyor Operator, North Siarsol Colliery ofKunustoria Area of M/ s . ECL is legal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer Reference No. 74 of2000
Parties: The management of Shankarpur O.CČ.P. M/ s . ECL, Burdwan(WB)
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 380/97 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 20-05-1998 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 10 of 1998 was registered on 22-06-1998 and [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
Vs.
The Gen. Secy, UCMU, Ukhra ( WB )
Representatives :
न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 31/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
For the management : Sri P.K. Das , Ld . Advocate
Fortheunion (Workman) : None
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
[सं. एल-22012/319/1999- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013 Dated-3-01-13
AWARD
S.O. 573. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-2-2013 .
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 ( 14 of 1947 ), Government of India through the Minsitry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 504/99 - IR (CM - II ) dated 6-09-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
[No. L - 22012/319 / 1999- IR ( C - II ) ] Β.Μ. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the management of Shankarpur O.C.P. of M / s . E.C.Ltd. in not paying O.T. for the periodfrom 1997-1998 to 132 workmen is legal and justified? In not, to what relief the workman are entitled ?"
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 31 of 2000
Parties: The management of North Searsole Colly, M/ s. ECL, Burdwan Vs. The Gen. Secy, NCWC , Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
Representatives:
Having received the Order of Letter No. L- 22012/ 504/99 - IR ( CM - II ) dated6-09-2000 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute , a reference case No. 74 of 2000 was registered on 19-10-2001 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 .
Sri P.K. Das , Ld. Advocate For the management : For the union (Workman) : None Industry: Coal State: West Bengal Dated-9-01-13 AWARD
Onperusal ofthe case record , it has been found that the Union/workman is not taking any step since 2007. It seems that the workman is now no more interested to proceed wth the case any further . As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.
ORDER
Inexercise 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 ( 14 of 1947), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/319/99 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 23-02-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal:
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as " No Dispute " existing . 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.
SCHEDULE
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of North Searsole Colliery in recording the date of birth and issuing the superannuation notice to terminate the service of Sh . Ram Chandra Kurmi , Pump Operator is justified ? If not, to what relief Sh . Kurmi is entitled? "
का.आ. 573. 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
Having received the Order of Letter No. L - 22012/ 319/99 - IR( CM - II ) dated 23-02-2000 of the above said 1757
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Parties: The management of Haripur Colly, M/s . ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy. , KMC, Burdwan (WB)
Representatives:
Sri P. K. Das , Ld. Advocate
For the management :
Sri Rakesh, Ld . Representative
For the union (Workman ):
reference from the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 31 of 2000 was registered on 13-03-2000 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 ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
State: West Bengal
Industry: Coal
Dated - 01-01-13
AWARD
Onperusal of the case record , it has been found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 2007. It seems that the workman has now no more interest to proceed with the case any further. Hence , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .
ORDER
Inexercise ofthe 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/ 249 / 2005 - IR(CM - II ) dated 02-08-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal:
SCHEDULE
Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute " existing . Send the copies of the order to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposedof.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013
"Whether the action of the management of Haripur Colliery Under Kenda Area of M/s . ECL in dismissing Shri Deepak Bouri Conveyer Operator , U.M. No. 532526 w.e.f. 16-03-2001 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief isthe workman entitled ?"
का.आ. 574, 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 , असनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 38/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल-22012/249/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
Having received the Order of Letter No. L- 22012 / 249/2005 - IR( CM - II ) dated 02-08-2006 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference case No.38 of 2006 was registered on 14-08-2006 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 ofthe said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
S.O. 574. 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-cum -Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Under KendaArea of M/s. ECL , and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 12-2-2013.
Onperusal of the case record, it has been found that Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld . Representative of the Union , submits that the management will allow the workman to join duty if the case is withdrawn . Since the case is aleady settled between both the parties , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .
[No. L- 22012/249 /2005 - IR (CM - II ) ]
ORDER
Β.Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑΙK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing . 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.
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer Reference No. 38 of 2006 1758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
3. The Union has not filed any statement of claim .
4. In the absence of any pleading and proof, the workmen are not entitled to any benefits and privileges .
Award is passed accordingly . JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013 का.आ. 575.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान इन्सैक्टीसाइडस लि. 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 ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-1 / 31 of 2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42011 /41 /2011- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
का.आ. 576. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिनटेडेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट आफिसिस और अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जो.आई.टी. आफ 64 आफ 2004/आई.टी.सी. 07/1997 ओल्ड) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013 S.O. 575. 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 / 31 of 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2013 .
[सं. एल-420: 1 /47/1995- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013 [No. L-42011 /41 /2011 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy .
---ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , MUMBAI
Present : Justice G.S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1 /31 of 2011
S.O. 576. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref.No. CGITA of 64 of 2004 New, ITC 7/1997 Old ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .
Employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Parties: And Their workmen
Appearances :
[No. L-42011/47/ 1995 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
For the Management : Mr. S.C. Hegde , Adv.
ANNEXURE
For the Workmen
: Mr. J.P. Sawant , Adv. Withdrew his power
State
: Maharashtra
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD
Mumbai , dated the 11th day of January, 2013 AWARD
Present:
1. 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 .
Binay Kumar Sinha , Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad , Dated 24th December, 2012
Reference : CGITA of 647 of 2004 New Reference : ITC. 07/1997 ( Old)
( 1 ) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Vadodara East Division -390001 .
Whether the Union's demand of disparity in Operator /Analyst Grade and rectification of basic pay in respect of Shri P.G. Sontakke and M.T. Pawar at par with existing Analyst in Lab . Section , is legal and justified ? What benefits and privileges are the workmen entitled to ?
(2) The Post Master, Raopura Post Office , Vadodara -390001 .
2. Shri J.P. Sawant learned counsel for the Union has filed an application today to allow him to withdraw his appearance in this matter. The prayer is granted .
..First Party 1759
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
And their workman
1. Shri K.M. Solanki .
2. Shri B.A. Shaikh
3. Shri S.F. Malik
4. Shri K.G. Chouhan
5. Shri R.A. Basava .
through the Circle Secretary,
All India Postal Employee's Union ,
Postman Clan IV and EDAS ,
C/o Shri H.F. Quereshi ,
Bechar Gandhichal ,
Opp. Behrampura Post Office , Ahmedabad- 380022
...Second Party
Forthe first party:
Shri Prakashchandra M. Rami ,
Advocate(AGP)
For the second party:
Pavankumar Handa, Advocate
AWARD
to contest nor filed any separate statement of claim or even filed any pursis adopting the statement of claim at Ext . 4. Their case is that they were working under the direct control and management of Chief Postmaster General, Senior Postmaster GPO, Raopura, Baroda and Senior Suptd. of Postmaster, Vadodara , East Division, they were appointed on vacant post of Postman but were terminated by illegal and unfair order. During the course of their tenure no chargesheet or memo had been served and they were honest and diligent in their works . Further case is that the persons junior to them are taken in job and absorbed on the posts on which the 4 workmen were performing works . In the self-prepared table workmen K. M. Solanki has claimed that he worked for 189 days in 1987, 258 days in 1983, 290 days in 1984, 300 days in 1985, 283 days in 1986 , 224 days in 1987 and 175 days in 1988. The workman RajendraAnop Singh Vasava has claimed 215 days of works in 1984, 296 days in 1985, 291 days in 1986, 289 days in 1987 and 225 days in 1988 , workman Bashiruddin A. Shaikh has claimed 259 days of work in 1983 , 299 days in 1984, 304 daysin 1985 , 292 days in 1986, 271 days in 1987 and 221 days in the year 1988. The workman Salimmian F. Malik has claimed 297 days of work in 1984, 300 days in 1985 , 293 days in 1986, 300 days in 1987 and 223 days in the year 1988. The claim of the workmen are that they completed 240days ofwork in calendar years . They have been illegally terminatedby common verbal order dated 30-9-1988 . They were not given retrenchment notice and the provision of Section 25- F was not followed by the employer ( 1st party) . On these grounds prayer made for their reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits and with cost of the litigation.
TheCentral Government/Govt . of India/Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya , New Delhi by its order No. 42011 /47/ 1995 - IR (DU) dated 10th July, 1997. Considering an Industrial Dispute exists between employers in relati , on to the management of Senior Suptd. of Post Officer , Vadodara and their workman in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( i) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal , Vadodara , formulating the terms of reference as follows:-
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Post offices , Vadodara East Division , Vadodara in terminating the service of S/Shri K. M. Solanki , B.A.Shaikh, S. F. Malik, K. G. Chauhan and R. A. Basava, Postman w.e.f. 30-9-1988 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the said workman are entitled for ? "
2. The notices were issued to the parties and they appeared and filed pleadings 2nd party vide Ext.4 submitted statement of claim on 29-4-1999 and its copy received by 1st party. The 1st party also filed its written statement vide Ext . 10 on 25-1-2000, and its copy received by 2nd party's lawyer.
4.The case ofthe management ofthe 1st party as per written statement dated 25-1-2000 at Ext . 10 is that the s /c ofthe 2nd party is misconceived, misleading and untenable , the 2nd party has no cause of action and the dispute raised bythe 2nd party in this reference is not maintainable and is fit to be rejected. Contention of the 1st party is that the workman were not appointed as regular Postman rather they were engaged on leave arrangement of Postman outsiders and they were engaged by the concerned sub PostMaster on leave arrangement of the regular Postman on oral order and no specific orders were issued to the workmen. The workmen were engaged by the concerned Postmaster on oral order as such when regular Postman remained on their duty at that time outsiders engaged vide them/him have to be relieved automatically without any order/notice or memo or chargesheet etc. It has been denied that any one is absorbed in Postman cadre who were junior to the workmen . Further case is that the workmen are not casual worker rather they were engaged only on leave arrangement . Further case is that the workmen have not worked continuously only at one place rather worked is differentpostoffices with break up period and never worked for 240 days in any calendar year. The workmen were out 3. The statement of claim was jointly filed by four workmen K.M. Solanki, B.A. Shaikh , S.F. Malik, and R.A. Basava who signed the statement of claim and its verification . The fifth workman K. G Chauhan did not appear
756 GI/2013-6 1760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
siders as such they were not eligible for appointment as a postman without any examination . The 1st party have denied the content of para 1 to 10 of the statement of claim. Onthese scores prayer was made to dismiss the reference withcost.
5. In view of pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken up for decision in this reference case .
ISSUES
(1) Whether the reference is maintainable ?
(II) Have the workmen's got valid cause of action ?
departmental exam . He admitted that he was not permanent employee . Workman Bashruddin A. Shaikh stated that he has passed SSC examination . He also admitted that he did not face interview and he did not appear in departmental examination and that he was not given identity card and that for regular appointment departmental examination is being taken. From the evidence of 2nd party workmen it is clear that K.M. Solanki, Rajendrabhai A. Vasava and Salim F. Malek are non- matriculate and that all the four were outsider and so they have not appeared at departmental examination whereas it compulsory to give departmental examination is postal departmental .
(III) Whether workmen K. M. Solanki , B.A. Shaikh , S.F. Malik , R.A. Vasava and K. G. Chauhan have completed 240 days of works in calendar year preceding their termination w.e.f. 30-9-1988 ?
(IV) Whether the action of the Management of Senior Supted. of Post Offices , Vadodara East Division , Vadodara in terminating those workmen in legal and justified ?
7. It has been argued by the lawyer of the first party that in the postal departmental advertisement in newspaper ispublished inviting application from eligible candidate and departmental exam is conducted and then successful candidates are being appointed/ recruited , whereas the workmen were outsider and were temporarily engaged in leave vacancy of regular postman and so they cannot be considered as regular/permanent employees .
(V) Whether the workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages and other benefits asclaimed ?
(VI) What orders are to be passed in this case ?
Findings
6. ISSUE NO . III & V
The four workmen out of five who are making contest inthis case have examined themselves and were also cross- examined by the lawyer of the frst party. Workman K.M. Solanki orally deposed at Ext . 16, Rajendrabhai A. Vasava at Ext. 28 Salim F. Malik at Ext. 27 and Bashruddin A. Shaikh atExt . 32. K.M. Solanki in his cross -examination stated that this fact is true that he was not going for duty the salary of that day was deducted' and that he was working as outsider. He also admitted that he did not appear in departmental examination since he studied below S.S.C. and so could not be made permanent employee . Rajendra A. Vasava during cross -examination admitted that he did not face interview and he was not given appointment letter, he also admitted that when remained not on duty on days he was not getting wage and his salary was being deducted . He admitted that for regular recruitment in the organization (postal service) the departmental examination is being taken and without appearing at the departmental examination the regular appointment is not being given . Workmen Salim F. Malik during cross -examination admitted that he studied upto 9th class . He also admitted that postal Deptt . has not given him appointment letter. He was not called for interview, not faced any interview and that when on any day he remained not on duty he was not getting wages for thatday and salary was deducted. His evidence go to show that he was incompetent and illegible for appearing at
8. The workmen in their joint statement of claim have given the working days per calendar year without any basis. Such statement is unauthenticated having no any basisparticularly as per there admission in their evidence that they were not temporary or regular appointees rather were outsider and that means they were engaged in different post office for the period of leave vacancy of regular postman and they were not getting wages when they did not report for duty. Their such claim that they completed 240 days of works in calendar years are falsified by the documentary evidences produced by the 1st party under Ext. 47/1 to 44/4 . Ext . 47/1 is Annexure A regarding works done by K.M. Solanki ( outsider ) that shows that he worked for 134 days in 1982, 49 days in 1983 , 136 days in 1984, 136 daysin 1985 , 109 days in 1986 , 15 days in 1987 and 06days in 1988. There is also supporting paper regarding payment of wages corresponding to those period yearwise/ monthwise. Ext. 47/2 is Annexure B regarding works done by S.F. Malek ( outsider ) that shows that he worked for 21 days in the year 1985-18 days in April and 03 days in June, 112 days in the year 1986-21 days May, 15 days June, 16 days July, 15 days September , 11 days October, 08 days November and 26 days in December, 39 days in the year 1987-16 days in September, 01 day in October , and 02 days in November. There is also supporting paper regarding payment ofwages corresponding to those period yearwise/ monthwise . Ext . 47/3 is Annexure C regarding works done by R.A. Vasava ( outsider ) that shows that he worked for 191 days in the year 1983 , 223 days in the year 1984, 55 days in the year 1985, 166 days in the year 1986, 121 days in the year 1987 and 97 days in the year 1988 (from January to August) . There is also supporting paper regarding payment of wages corresponding to those period yearwise/ monthwise. Ext . 47/4 Annexure D regarding works done by B.A. Shaikh (outsider) that shows that he worked for 182 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
13. ISSUE No. VI
The reference is dismissed since the 2nd party workmen is not entitled to any relief. No order as to any cost.
Thisis my award.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 577.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डिविजनल इन्जीनियर , टेलीकाम प्रोजेक्ट , शिमला ( हिमाचल ) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 884/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -40012/140/2004- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
days in the year 1983,65 days in the year 1984, 175 days in the year 1985, and 79 days in the year 1986. He did not worked in the year 1987 and 1988. There is also supporting paper regarding payment of wages to him corresponding to those period year wise/ month wise . The Annexure A, B , C, D marked Ext . 47/1 to 47/4 are duly certified by Sr. Postmaster Vadodara Head Office-390001 . There is no any reason to disbelieve those documentary evidence produced by the 1st party. On the other hand there is no iota of evidence of the second party that they were not outsider engaged for work on leave of absence of regular postman and that they were engaged/appointed against regular vacancies. There is also no iota of evidence except own version ofthose four workmen that they worked for 240 days in each calendar year . On the other hand the documentary evidence Ext . 47/1 to 47/4 are well corroborated bythe oral evidence of Shri Ahmed Gafurbhai Vora Suptd ofPost Office at Ext. 36. He also stated in cross -examination by 2nd party that the permanent employees are recruited through Recruitment Board. Whereas workmen were temporary employee ( outsider ) and so it is not necessary to do the enquiry against them and not necessary to give them retrenchment notice (u/s 25 F of I.D. Act).
S.O. 577.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 884/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to theDivisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Shimla (HP) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .
9.As against such evidence there is dearth of cogent evidence on behalf of the 2nd party workman . More so all the four persons in their oral evidence vide Ext. 16 , 27 , 28 and 32 have admitted that they were engaged temporarily as outsider worker and they studied less than S.S.C and thatthey did not appear in departmental Exam since they were not eligible to give examination and they did not have required qualification of permanent/regular employee .
[No. L-40012/140/2004- IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D.884/2005
10. In view of the discussions and consideration of the evidence discussed above , I find and hold that none ofthe second party workman has completed 240 days of works in the calendar year preceding their oral tennination on 30-9-1998 and so there was no need for giving them notice u/ s 25 F ofthe I.D. Act 1947. I further find and hold thatthe workmen involved in this case are not entitled to get relief of their reinstatement or any back wages . Thus issue No. III & V are decided against the 2nd party.
Registered on 12-9-2005
11. ISSUE No. I & II
Sh . Bhag Singh Sharma, S /o Sh. Pritam Singh , Village Bhatudi , Tehsil Shillai , Distt . Sirmour, Sirmour (HP).
...Petitioner
Versus
In view of the findings to issue No. III&V in the foregoings , the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd party have no cause of action to raise Industrial Dispute against the management of the 1st party.
12. ISSUE No. IV
1. The Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Sanjay Sadan , Chhota Shimla, Shimla (HP)
2. The Managing Director, BSNL , New Delhi .
...Respondent
Appearances:
None .
For theworkman :
Sh . K.K. Thakur Advocate .
For the Management:
In view of the findings in the foregoings , I find and hold that the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Vadodara East Division Vadodara in terminating the services of Shri K.M. Solanki , B.A. Shaikh, S.F. Malik, K.G. Chauhan and R.A. Vasava outsider postmen w.e.f. 30-9-1988 is legal andjustified. This issue is decided in favour of the 1st party .
1762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013/PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]
AWARD
Passed on 2nd January, 2013
any evidence and subsequently none appeared for management also .
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/ 140/2004 (IR(DU)) Dated 10-1-2005, 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: -
However from the record it is clear that the retrenchment of the workman was according to the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . There is no allegation that it was illegal or unjustified for any other reason also. Hence, it is held that the retrenchrnent of the workman w.e.f. 30-11-2002 is legal and justitied. Workman is not entitled to any relief. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013 "Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Telecom Project, Shimla to retrench the workman Sh . Bhag Singh Sharma w.e.f. 30-11-2002 is illegal andunjustified ? If so, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
का.आ. 578,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुधरण में कन्धेय सरकार डाइरेक्टर , सैन्सस ऑप्रेशनस , जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2002 ) प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013- को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
The case of the workman is that he had been appointed as Store Keeper on 7-5-1998 in the Office ofthe Divisional Engineer (Telecom Project ) Sanjay Sadan , Chhota Shimla II but his services were illegally terminated orally on 4-6-1999. However in conciliation proceedings on a demand notice he was taken back in the service but his services were again illegally terminated on 30-11-2002 against the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. He has prayed for his re - engagement with full back wages and consequential benefits .
[सं. एल-420 / 2 /83/1998 आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 12 February, 2013
S.O. 578. pursustice of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref No. 24/2002) of Industrial Tribunal Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between The Director, Census oprations , Jaipur and their workman , which was received bythe Central Goverment on 5-2-2013.
[No. L-42012/ 83 / 1998 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
अनुबन्ध
The reply to the claim statement was not filed, by the management. But an affidavit of Jai Ram DET Project was filed on behalf ofthe management . Actually this affidavit is by way of reply to the claim statement . It has been stated that the 'workman had been engaged orally on 7-5-1998 as casual worker on daily wages for a specific project scheme on contract basis as stop gap arrangement and as per the requirement and need of the Department it was admitted that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year. It has been further alleged that retrenchment order dated 30-10-2002 is legal as per provision contained in Section 25F of the Act . The workman is not entitled to any relief and as per agreement in conciliation proceedings he cannot claim backwages .
औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राजस्थान पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर.एच.जे.एस. निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक औ. न्या. केन्द्रीय/-24/2002 दिनांक स्थापित : 10-5-2002 Workman examined himself. However there is a notice for retrenchment available on record. It is dated 30-10-2002. Through this notice the workman had been informed that he would stand retrenched w.e.f. 30-11-2002 i.e. on the expiry ofone month's notice period . He had also been asked to collect the compensation under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act from the Senior Accountant Officer in the office of the Deputy General Manager, Telecom Project Shimla. It is therefore clear that while retrenching the workman the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were duly complied with.
प्रसंग : भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश क्रमांक एल -42012/ 83/98- आई आर (डीयू) दिनांक 10-4-2002 मध्य निर्देश विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947
कृष्णगोपाल पुत्र धूलीलाल शर्मा निवासी 2- जे-12 महावीरनगर तृतीया , कोटा
-प्रार्थी श्रमिक
एवं
डॉयरेक्टर , सेन्सस ऑपरेशन , 6 - बी झालाना डूंगरी , जयपुर ।
Itmay mentioned here that while the case was fixed for the remaining evidence of the workman the workman absented himself since 20-10-2008 and he did not appear despite notice sent by registered post to him . The registry returned with the postal endorsement that no person of such name is available on the given address . Hence the case proceeded ex parte against the workman and his evidence was closed. Management however did not lead
-अप्रार्थी नियोजक 1763 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9, 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
उपस्थित
भी अनुबन्ध के आधार पर लगया गया था एवं अनुबन्ध समाप्त होने के साथ ही उसकी सेवायें भी समाप्त हो जाती हैं । इसके अलावा अन्य कई तथ्यों का उल्लेख करते हुए अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी का क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।
प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः कोई उपस्थित नहीं अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः श्री सी.बी.सोरल
अधिनिर्णय दिनांकः 12-12-2012
:अधिनिर्णय:
5. इसके पश्चात् साक्ष्य प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी कृष्णगोपाल का शपथ- पत्र पेश हुआ , प्रार्थी द्वारा उससे जिरह की गयी , तत्पश्चात् अप्रार्थी की साक्ष्य में गवाह एच.सी. शर्मा का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ , प्रार्थी द्वारा उससे जिरह की गयी ।
भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के प्रासंगिक आदेश दि. 10-4-2002 के द्वारा निम्न निर्देश/ विवाद , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है :
"Whether the action of the Census Department through Director of Census Operation Rajasthan , Jaipur in discontinuing the services of Sh . Krishan Gopal S/o Sh . Dhuli Lal Sharma w.e.f. 30-6-92 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ? "
2. निर्देश/विवाद, न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को नोटिस/सूचना जारी का विधिवत अवगत करवाया गया ।
6. उभयपक्ष की साक्ष्य समाप्ति के पश्चात् पत्रावली बहस अन्तिम हेतु नियत की जाती रही एवं दि. 8-11-12 को प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि ने एक प्रार्थना- पत्र इस आशय का पेश किया कि उन्हें समाचार- पत्र के माध्यम से यह पता चला है कि कर्मकार कृष्णगोपाल की मृत्यु हो चुकी है, अतः उसकी पत्नी उषा शर्मा को उसका विधिक प्रतिनिधि बनाया जाय । इस पर न्यायाधिकरण ने उसी दिन यह आदेश पारित किया था कि कर्मकार का मृत्यु प्रमाण- पत्र व पी.एम. रिर्पोट जो भी हो , वे पेश किये जावें तथा प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वयं उसके विधिक प्रतिनिधि द्वारा ही पेश किया जाना चाहिए । प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि ने प्रार्थना-पत्र आदेश 22 नियम 3 , 4 - ए, 10 - ए जा.दी. का पेश किया । इस प्रकार का प्रार्थना- पत्र कौन पेश कर सकता है , इस सम्बंध में आदेश 22 नियम 3 जा.दी. के प्रावधान को उदृत करना उचित होगा जोकिनिम्नानुसार है : -
"Procedure in case ofdeath of one of several plaintiffs orofsole plaintiff.--( 1) Where one oftwo or more plaintiffs diesand the right to sue does not servive to the- surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone , or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives , the Court , on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit .
(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub - rule ( I ) , the suit abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned , and , on the application of the defendant , the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased palintiff. "
3. प्रार्थी कर्मकार की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश किया गया जिसमें वर्णित किया गया कि महापंजीयक , भारत सरकार के गृह मंत्रालय द्वारा जनगणना का कार्य करवाया जाता है एवं जिला स्तर पर कोटा शहर में सहायक निदेशक, जनगणना कार्य के लिए श्रमिकों की नियुक्तिमौखिक रूप से की गयी एवं इसमें प्रार्थी को भी 24-6-91 से 900 रू. प्रतिमाह की दर से कम्पायलर के पद पर मौखिक रूप से नियुक्ति दी गयी । बाद में सहायक निदेशक का कार्य समाप्त हो गया । प्रार्थी ने 24-6-91 से 30-6-92 तक लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक कार्य किया । महापंजीयक , भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली के द्वारा कम्पायलर के पद पर 31-12-93 तक की सेवा अवधि बढ़ा दी गयी थी परन्तु प्रार्थी को 30-6-92 को कार्यालय समय पश्चात् ही सेवा से हटा दिया गया । सेवा समाप्ति मौखिक आदेश से की गयी । हटाने से पहले धारा 25 एफ , जी एवं एन आदि की पालना नहीं की गयी । प्रार्थी ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में भी एक याचिका पेश की जिसमें समझौता अधिकारी के यहां कार्यवाही करने का निर्देश दिया गया । बाद में प्रार्थी ने पुनः याचिका उच्च न्यायालय में पेश की जिस पर विवाद को औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को रेफर किये जाने का आदेश दिया गया । अतः प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के माध्यम से अप्रार्थी द्वारा दि. 30-6-92 से उसकी की गयी सेवा मुक्ति को अनुचित व अवैध घोषित करने के साथ ही नियमित सेवा में घोषित किये जाने व बकाया समस्त परिलाभ दिलाये जाने की मांग की ।
7. हस्तगत मामले में ना तो मृतक कर्मकार के विधिक प्रतिनिधि की ओर से कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश हुआ है एवं ना ही कहीं ऐसा उल्लेख हुआ है कि वही उसकी एकमात्र वारिस हो । ऐसे मामले में तो प्रार्थना-पत्र स्वयं उस विधिक प्रतिनिधि की ओर से ही पेश होना चाहिए एवं यदि विधिक प्रतिनिधि पेश नहीं कर सकता हो तो वह अपने अधिकार- पत्र के जरिये अपने विधिक प्रतिनिधि या अपने अधिवक्ताको इस हेतु अधिकृत कर सकता है । इस मामले में ना तो श्रीमती उषा शर्मा की ओर से विधिक प्रतिनिधि के पक्ष में ऐसा प्रार्थना - पत्र या वकालतनामा जारी किया हुआ है एवं ना ही ऐसा प्रकट हुआ है कि वही इस मामले में एक मात्र विधिक प्रतिनिधि होकर पक्षकार बनना चाहती हो । अतः जहाँ उत्तरजीवी विधिक प्रतिनिधि की ओर से पक्षकार बनने बाबत कोई रूचि नहीं ली जा रही 4. अप्रार्थी द्वारा क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट का जवाब पेश किया गया जिसमें वर्णित किया गया कि प्रार्थी द्वारा विवाद काफी वर्षों की देरी से पेश किया गया है । जनगणना का कार्य 10 वर्ष में एक बार कराया जाता है एवं इस कार्य के लिए संविदा पर कर्मचारियों को जिसमें कम्पायलर/कोडर/चेकर आदि पद होते हैं , लगाया जाता है । संविदा समाप्त होने पर कर्मचारी की सेवायें स्वतः समाप्त हो जाती है । प्रार्थी 1764
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
Institute ofMedical Education & Research , Ghandigarh and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .
[No. L-42012/74/2010- IR (DU) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH
Present : SRI A.K. RASTOGI , PresidingOfficer.
Case No. I. D. 232/2012
Registered on 24-2-2012
Sh . Shailendra Kumar Pandey S /o Sh . Raj Kishore Pandey, H.No. 9 , Village Saranglar, Chandigarh .
....Petitioner
Versus
Medical
The Director , Post Graduate Institute of Education & Research , Sector 12, Chandigarh .
हो तो न्यायाधिकरण जबरन या अपनी इच्छा से किसी को विधिक प्रतिनिधि नहीं बना सकती है । आदेश 22 नियम 3 जा.दी. का सारांश भी यही है कि ऐसे विधिक प्रतिनिधि को ही या उसके प्रतिनिधि के मार्फत ऐसा प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश होना चाहिए । हस्तगत मामले में इन दोनों ही चीजों का अभाव है । अतः ऐसी परिस्थिति में ना तो अनिश्चितकाल तक मामला इसी प्रयोजन हेतु लम्बित रखा जा सकता है एवं ना ही मृतक के विधिक प्रतिनिधि के आने का इन्तजार किया जा सकता है । कर्मकार/ श्रमिक की मृत्यु बाबत भी कोई स्पष्ट पुख्ता तथ्य जिसमें मृत्यु प्रमाण-पत्र आदि होते हैं, वे भी पेश नहीं किये गये हैं, फिर भी विधिक प्रतिनिधि द्वारा किया गया अभिकथन कर्मकार की मृत्यु के बारे में मान भी लिया जाता है तो भी उत्तरजीवी विधिक प्रतिनिधि द्वारा ही प्रार्थना - पत्र पेश किया जाना चाहिए या वे स्वयं नहीं आ सकती है तो अपने प्रतिनिधि के माध्यम से ऐसा प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश कर सकती है परन्तु दोनों में से एक भी कार्यवाही नहीं होने से मामला स्वतः उपशमित हो जाता है एवं ऐसे में कोई अनुतोष दिया जाना भी सम्भव नहीं हो पाता । हस्तगत मामले में भी प्रार्थी कर्मकार की मृत्यु हो जाने व उसके किसी विधि क प्रतिनिधि द्वारा विधिक प्रतिनिधि बनने का कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश नहीं किये जाने से कर्मकार की मृत्यु के साथ ही मामला उपशमित होकर निष्प्रभावी हो जाता है एवं ऐसे में कोई अनुतोष दिया जाना सम्भव नहीं है ।
....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman :
None .
For the Management: Sh . N. K. Zakhmi Advocate .
AWARD
Passed on 11th January, 2013
परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने प्रासांगिक आदेश क्र. एल-42012/83/98- आईआर (डीयू) दिनांक 10-4-2002 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/रेफ्रेन्स को इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी कर्मकार कृष्णगोपाल की मृत्यु हो जाने व उसके किसी विधिक प्रतिनिधि द्वारा विधिक बनने का कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश नहीं किये जाने से कर्मकार की मृत्यु के साथ ही मामला उपशमित होकर निष्प्रभावी हो जाता है एवं ऐसे में कोई अनुतोष दिया जाना सम्भव नहीं है ।
प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013
Central Government vide Notification No. L- 42012/ 74/2010- IR (DU) Dated 9-2-2012 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and sub section (2-A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as'Act' ) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
का.आ. 579. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डाइरेक्टर , पोस्ट ग्रेजुएट इन्सटीट्यूट ऑफ मेडीकल एजूकेशन एवं रिसर्च चड़ीगढ़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 232/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
" Whether the action of the management of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research Sector 12, Chandigarh represented through its Director in terminating the service of Sh . Shailendra Kumar Pandey S/o Sh . Raj Kishore Pandey, House No. 9, Village Saranglar, Chandigarh is just and legal ?What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? "
[सं. एल -42012/74/2010- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
After receiving the reference notices were issued to the parties . The workman did not turn up despite notice sent by registered post to him on 2-5-2012 . The notice received back unserved with the postal endorsement " no such person" . Clearly the workman is not available at the given address . Since he 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 .
S.O. 579. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 232/ 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No.II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Post Graduate
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer 1765
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2013
granting temporary status to Shri Praveen Dattatraya Pande , casual labour till date and immediately retrenching his services with effect from 14-09-1993 after the receipt of the Notification of vacancies , dt . 28-08-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
का.आ. 580.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकाम डिस्ट्रकट इन्जीनियर , बुलडाना के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. सी. जी.आई.टी/एन.जी.पी./48/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/02/1994- आई आर (डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Praveen Pande , ( ' the workman" in short) , filed the statement of claim and the management of District Engineer, Telecom , (" Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement.
New Delhi , the 12th February, 2013
S.O. 580.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ the Central Government NGP /48 / 2002 ) of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom District Engineer , Buldhana and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .
[No. L-40012/02/ 1994- IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he is a matriculate and he holds driving licence to drive all kinds of vehicle including heavy motor vehicles and he was employed as a casual labourer in the office of SDO , Telegraph , Buldhana w.e.f. 04-01-1984 , after his name was sponsored by the employment exchange , Buldhana and he worked continuously as a casual labourer till his services were discontinued, orally w.e.f. 01-06-1985 and he worked for 355 days in the year 1984 and 135 days in the year 1985 and he approached the Telecom District , ' Engineer, Akola byrepresentations dated 09-05-1989 and 07-01-1992 and theTelecom District Engineer, Buldhana by representations dated03-05-1992, 29-01-1993 and 08-07-1993 with a request totake him on duty and to regularize his services by giving him temporary status as casual labourer.
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Date: 07-01-2013.
Case No.CGIT /NGP /48/2002
Party No.1 : The Telecom District Engineer, Telecom Department , Buldhana, At. Khamgaon -444303 . (MS)
Versus
PartyNo.2 Shri Praveen Dattatreya Pande , Ramnagar, Ward No. 28, At & Post : Buldhana , Distt. Buldhana ( MS ) .
AWARD
(Dated: 7th January, 2013)
Inexercise 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 had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Telecom District Engineer and their workman, Shri Praveen Pande , to CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 40012/2/94- IR ( DU) dated 22-02-1995 , with the following schedule:
The further case of the workman is that he was again employed w.e.f. 13-04-1991 as a casual driver with a pay of Rs . 1830 per month and he was given the job of driver for driving the jeep, bearing registration no . MH- 30-8702 of the SDO, Telegraph , Buldhana and he worked continuously and was paid the salary on monthly basis upto November, 1992 and thereafter , he was being paid his salary onweekly basis and he worked for 366 days in the year 1992 and 285 days in the year 1993 and according to the circulars of the department , he was entitled to be regularized by granting temporary status as casual labour , as he had been employed before the cut off date i.e. 30-03-1985 and had completed 240 days during the calendar year, 1984-85 and the party no. I has the power to condone the absence/ break in service and the party no . 1 ought to have condoned the break in his services for the period from 01-06-1985 to 13-04-1991 and during the said period he was not employed and the Telecom District Manager had written a letter dated 20-02-1993 to the General Manager by strongly recommending his case for grant of temporary status , but nothing was learnt thereafter and when he was hoping that his services would be regularized by granting him temporary status , the SDO, Telegraph , Buldhana by order dated 14-06-1993 , retrenched him from services w.e.f. 15-10-1993 and ne retrenchment compensation was paid to him and the statement made in the order dated 14-09-1993 that "the work against which , he was employed "Whether the action of the Telecom District Engineer, Buldhana at Khamgaon-444 303 , by not 1766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
is ceased to be there " was factually incorrect , as the jeep which he was driving was there and party no . 1 is using the services of one casual labourer, Mr. Arun Patil to drive the said jeep and there is also another Matador with party no.1 and no driver has been appointed to drive the said vehicle and the services of other casual labourers are being utilized for driving the said Matador.
temporary status and since the workman was in casual employment, his services were rightly discontinued w.e.f. 15-10-1993 and he was not entitled for any retrenchment compensation and as there was no work available with them , the casual employment of the workman was put to an end and Arun Patil is their permanent employee , who has been in service much prior to the workman i.e. from 01-03-1982 and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in 1984-85 and the retrenchment of the workman is not illegal and they did not commit breach of the provisions of section 25- F of the Act and the workman was also found not suitable for employment, as he failed fulfill the conditions stipulated in the notification for appointment of motor drivers and he was rightly not considered for appointment and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his retrenchment by nitice dated 4-9-1993 was patently illegal , becasue the mandatory provisions of section 25 -F of the Act were not complied and retrenchment compensation was not paid to him at all and as such , his retrenchment is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside and the Telecom District Engineer, Buldhana on 25-03-1993 issued a notification for recruitment to the cadre of motor drivers and it is clear from the said notification that there were two vacancies , out of which one was meant for departmental candidate and the said facts clearly established that there was need for employing a motor driver and therefore; his retrenchment on the ground of non availability of work was malafide and as he was insisting to regularize his services , to silence him, the impugned retrenchment was restored to and the impugned order of retrenchment in the circumstances being malafide is liable to be quashed and set aside .
The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order of retrenchment dated 14-09-1993 and to reinstate him in service as a casual motor driver with continuity and back wages and to direct the party no . 1 to grant him temporary status and to regularize him in service with all consequential benefits .
The party no . I in the written statement has also taken the specific plea that the reference is not maintainable in law, as the workman had filed original application no . 49/94 before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Bombay on 20-12-1993 , asking for the same relief and the reference wasmade, when the earlier dispute was sub -judiced before an appropriate forum and the workman cannot invoke the jurisdiction of both the courts and on that count , the reference is not maintainable . The further case of party no. I is that there is no case for the workman and he did not put. continuous employment with them and his past services cannot be considered and the same was rightly rejected on the basis of the circular dated 14-03-1991 and the subsequent employment does not bastow any right to the workman , since the same was purely casual employment, considering the work available with them and since there was non availability of work with them , the services of the workman was rightly discontinued w.e.f. 15-10-1993 and the reference being baseless and vexatious , the same is liable to be answered in the negative and the reference is to be dismissed .
3. The party no . 1 in their written statement , denying the allegations in the statement in claim have pleaded inter- alia that the name of the workman was not sponsored by the employment exchange , Buldhana , but he was employed as a casual labourer with effect from 14-01-1984 and his services were discontinued with effect from 01-06-1985 and he did not work for 355 days in 1984 or 135 days in 1985 and the workman approached the District Engineer, Akola by making representation and his representation was considered and rejected by them , as there could not be a regularisation of employment after a gap of more than five years , as per the circular.
4. In support of their respective claims , both the parties have led oral evidence , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence . The workman has examined himself as a witness to prove his case , whereas , one Anand Indrasingh Pardesi has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party no.1 . The witnesses in their examination - in- chief, which are on affidavit have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and written statement respectively.
The further case of the party no . 1 is that due to repeated request made by the workman and on sympathetic consideration, the workman was employed as a casual driver w.e.f. 13-04-1991 by them and in the order of appointment , the workman was given a clear understanding that his appointment was that of a casual worker and he would not have any claim for regular employment and accepting such conditions , the workman resumed his duties and the workman did not work for 360 days in 1992 and 285 days in 1993 and the workman is not entitled for regularisation of his service or for grant of
However, in the cross - examination, the workman has admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he was sponsored by the employment exchange and he was served with one month's notice and he was , removed and discontinued, because the work was not available a mentioned in his application dated 29-01-1993 , Ext . W- 6 and he was engaged as a casual labourer from 01-01-1984 and he does not know if it was a permanent vacancy and post, on which , he was engaged in the year 1984 .
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5. The witness for the party no.1 in his cross- examination has stated that the contents of his affidavit are based on his knowledge from official records and he does not have any personal knowledge about the engagement and disengagement of the workman and the document, Ext . W-4 shows that the workman worked for 490 days intermittently for the period from 04-01-1984 to 01-05-1985 and the contents of Ext . W-4 are correct and the workman was engaged as casual driver w.e.f. 14-04-1991 and when the said worked ceased, he was discontinued w.e.f. 15-10-1993 and no retrenchment compensation was given to the workman and there was notification dated 25-08-1993by the Telecom District Engineer, Buldhana , regarding recruitment to the cadre of motor driver .
and he also informed of his having valid driving licence and the department considered his request and found that the workman can be given the casual work of motor driving, when available and therefore , the validity of retrenchment ofthe workman with effect from 14-09-2003 is the main issue and in order to challenge the retrenchment , the workman has to satisfy that he had completed 240 days of service and the burden has not been discharged by the workman by producing documents and it is clear that the workman was not holding any post and his engagement was not in terms of any notification or in response to any circular and therefore, no right whatsoever can be spelt out for calling the impugned retrenchment as illegal and the notification dated 25-08-1993 was to fill up the vacant post of driver and therefore, it was not possible for the party no. I to continue the engagement of casual labourer and the discontinuance of the workman from 14-09-1993 was an administrative necessity and the discontinuance of the workman is legal andjustified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
8. On perusal of the materials on record including the schedule of reference , it is found that there are two aspects of the schedule of reference , one granting of temporary status to the workman as casual labourer and the other regarding the legality of the retrenchment of the workman from services from 14-09-1993 . It is also found from record that there is no dispute that the workman worked as casual labourer from 04-01-1984 to 01-06-1985 and he was disengaged thereafter for want of work in the sub- division . It is also not disputed that after obtaining license for driving motor vehicles , on 09-05-1989 , the workman approached the party no . I to give him the job of casual motor driver. The workman has claimed that according to the departmental circulars , he is entitled to be regularized as casual labourer by granting tempora y status , as he was employed before the cutoff date i.e 30-02-1985 and he had completed 240 days of work during 1984-1985 . However, neither in the statement of claim nor in his evidence , the workman has mentioned the number or date of circulars according to which , he was entitled for temporary status . The workman has also not produced any circular to show thatunder the said circular , he was entitled for temporary status and regularisation as casual labourer. The burden to prove that he is entitled to get temporary status and for regularisation as casual labourer is on the workman. As he failed to produce the circular or any other evidence in support of his claim of entitlement to get temporary status and regularisation as casual labourer , it is not possible to give any relief to the workman in that respect.
6.Atthe time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the ' workman that the name of the workman was sponsored by the employment exchange and in pursuance of the same , he was engaged as a causal labourer on daily wages of Rs . 10 per day w.e.f. 04-01-1984 and his services were discontinued w.e.f. 01-06-1985 orally and the workman had worked for 355 days and 135 days in the year 1984 and 1985 respectively and he had worked for a total period of 490 days prior to his discontinuance and the workman again orally employed as a casual motor driver w.e.f. 13-04-1991 with the pay scale of Rs . 1830 per month and as per the departmental circulars , the workman was entitled to be regularized by granting temporary status as casual labourer, because he was employed before ' the cut - off date , i.e. 30-03-1985 and had completed 240 days during the calendar year 1984-85 and party no . I had power to condone the break in service and as such , party no . I ought to have condoned the break of service of the workman from 01-06-1984 to 13-04-1991 , during the period for which he was not employed and the case of the workman was recommended bythe Telecom District Manager, Buldhana to the General Manager ( T ) Vidharbha Area , Nagpur to grant him temporary status , but nothing was done on such recommendations and instead , the workman was retrenched from services w.e.f. 15-10-1993 , after giving of one month's notice on 14-09-1993 and the Telecom District Engineer, Buldhana on 25-08-1993 issued a notification for recruitment to the cadre ' of Motor drivers and from the said notification, it was clear that two posts of motor driver were vacant , so the retrenchment of the workman for no work was totally false and smacked of mala - fides and as such , the order of retrenchment is to be quashed and set aside and the workman is entitled to get temporary status and regularisation of his services in the vacant sanctioned postw.e.f. 25-08-1993 and all consequential benefits .
9. So far the other question regarding the retrenchment of the workman from 15-10-1993 (not from 14-09-1993 as mentioned in the schedule of reference ) is concerned, from the materials on record , it is found that the engagement of the workman as a casual driver was w.e.f. 14-04-1991 to 14-10-1993 and his services were discontinued w.e.f. 15-10-1993 . It is also found from record that on 14-09-1993 , the party no . I gave a written one ' month's notice to the workman intimating him , that his 7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . I that the workman worked as casual labourer from 1984 to 1985 and the said fact is not relevant for the present term of reference and after 1985 , the workman in the year 1989 , approached party no.1 with a request to engage him in some work as casual labourer
756 G1/2013-7 1768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART 11 -- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
ORDER
services would not be required w.e.f. 15-10-1993 , due to cessation of the work of casual driver. It is also clear from the evidence on record including the admission of the witnesses examined on behalf of party no . 1 in his affidavit and so also in his cross - examination that the workman had completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of termination i.e. 15-10-1993 . It is also clear from the record that though one month's notice of retrenchmen was given to the workman by party no . 1 , no retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25 - F of the Act was given. So , the retrenchment of the workman from services w.e.f. 15-10-1993 is illegal .
The action ofthe Telecom District Engineer, Buldhana at Khamgaon in not granting temporary status to Shri Praveen Dattatraya Pande , casual labourer is justified . The action of party no. 1 in retrenching the services of the workman w.e.f. 15-10-1993 ( not w.e.f. 14-09-1993 as mentioned in the schedule of reference ) is illegal and unjustified . The workman is entitled to monetary compensation of Rs . 20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement . He isnot entitled for any other relief. The party no . 1 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs . 20,000 to the workman within one month from the date of Publication of the award in the official gazette.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2013
का.आ. 581.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स गैस अथारिटी ऑफ इण्डिया लिमिटेड औरेया उ. प्र. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23,13,14,15,18 , 21 , 22,51 , 53 , 54/ 06 एवम 26/07 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/60 , 74 , 76 , 73 , 59 , 75 , 61 /2005-आई आर ( एम ) एवं सं. एल 30012/23 , 12 , 11 , 10/2006 ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th February, 2013 10. The question now remains for consideration is as to- whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service . In this regard , I think it proper to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case , between the in - charge officer and another versus Shankar Shetty reported in 2010 (8 ) SCALE- 583 . In the said decision , Hon'ble Apex Court have held that, " Industrial Disputes Act 1947/ Section 25F /Daily wager / Termination of service in violation of Section 25 (F) /Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement /Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by appellants in 1978/His engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 06-09-85 / Respondent raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in Sec . 25 ( F) of the Act/ Labour Court rejected respondents claim: holding that Section 2S ( F ) of the Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination 06-09-85 . On appeal , High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent into service holding that termination of respondent was illegal . Whether an order of reinstatement will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25 (F) of the Act - Allowing the appeal- held:
S.O. 581.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 23,13,14,15,18,21,22,51,53,54,/06 and 26/07 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 M/s. GasAuthorty of India Limited , (Auraiya U.P. ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2013 .
[No. L -30012/60, 74, 76, 73 , 59 , 75 , 61 /2005 - IR ( M )& No. L- 30012/23 , 12, 11 , 10/2006 ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy
ANNEXXURE
;
The High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent . The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 year intermittently up to September 6 , 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one it appears to us the relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice . In our considered opinion the compensation of rupees one lakh ( Rs . 1,00,000) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just and equitable " .
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 23/06 , 13/06 , 14/06, 15 / 06, 18/06 , 21/06 , 22/06 , 26/06 , 51/6 , 53/06 , 54/06 11. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above are squarely applicable to the present case at hand . Applying the said principles , it appears to me that a relief of reinstatement is not justified in this case and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice .In my considered opinion compensation of Rs . 20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just an equitable . Hence it is ordered .
Sri Ram Gopal Singh , Son of Sri Hardayal Singh , VillageMunsipur, Post Fatehpur Baini , District Auraiya .
1769 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
And
The General Manager , M/ s GasAuthorty of India Limited, U.P. Petro Chemical Complex,
PataAuraiya .
asDistrict Magistrate Auraiya , letter dated 11-11-86 and letter of special Secretary Development date 22-11-86 , order of the D.M. Dated 24-11-86 , report after inquiry was submitted by the Tehsildar which provide that a member ofsuch land loser family will be provided with the job. In relation to the land acquired a case no . 8-10-94 was decided wherein also mentioned that a land loser family will be givenemployment under the opposite party . There arrived atripartite settlement between the families of landlosers and themanagement in the presence of DM Auraiya which took place on 29-6-98 wherein the above position had been agreed upon.
2. Central Government vide notification no.L -30012/ 60/2005 - IRM , dated 21.02.06, L- 30012/ 74/2005 - IRM , dated 24.01.06, L- 30012/ 76/2005 - IRM , dated 24.01.06 , L - 30012/ 73/2005 - IRM , dated 24.01.06, L- 30012/ 59/2005 - IRM , dated 21.02.06 , L - 30012/ 75/2005 - IRM , dated 17.02.06 , L - 30012/ 61/2005 - IRM , dated 28.02.06, L- 30012/23/2006- IRM, dated 14.05.07, L -30012/ 12/2006- IRM, dated 14.07.06, L- 30012/ 11 /2006 - IRM , dated 14.07.06, L- 30012 / 10/06/ 1 RM dated 14-07-06, has referred the reference or adjudication to this tribunal.
2.These are 11 cases , which have been consolidated vide a judicial order on the prayer of both the parties as the facts are almost similar in all the cases and common question of law is involved. The date of termination is almost the same in all the above cases but it does not make any difference in disposing off the cases all together. Case No. 23 of2006 Ram Gopal Singh versus Gas Authority of India limited has considered to be the leading case and evidence has been recorded in the said case . Therefore considering the feasibility the facts of this case are being reproduced . There does not appear to be any necessity of reproducing the facts of other cases . Government of India Ministry of Labour has sent the following reference for decision.
6. As such the opposite party in compliance to the orders of the Government and as per settlement the opposite party provided a job to the land executives and the complainant was also given a job under the Horticulture . The workmen were also given the gate pass by the CISF of the Gail Unit for entry in the premises of Gail Unit . After the appointment when the claimants demanded salary and wages according to the regular employees the management tried to convert these applicants to be the contractor's employees which was agitated by these applicants . The management getting aggrieved did not permit the claimants to enter into the premises on 22-12-2001 by the Security Guard of the premises and terminated their services orally so that the claimant could not raise their legitimate demands . The work with the opposite party was ofpermanent nature . Thereafter the claimants moved an application before the ALC from where the present reference has been sent to this tribunal for decision . Therefore , they have prayed that the action of the opposite party be declared as illegal and they may be reinstated with the opposite party.
3. Whether the action of the management of Gail Pata Auraiva in refusing to employ Sri Ram Gopal Singh witheffect from 22-12-2001 is legal and justified? Ifnot to whatrelief the workman is entitled to ?
7. The opposite party has filed their reply to the maintainability of the claim petition as well as on merits refuting the claim statement .
8. It is stated that Gail is a public sector enterprise under the adges of Ministry of Petroleum Government of India and registered as a Company. It has set a petro plant Pata District Auraiya , this plant is of a highly sensitive nature . With a view to protect the plant from any insurgent type activities and for the purpose of safety specialized security namely CISF was deployed by the Ministry of HomeAffairs Government of India . The entry into the plant premises is regulated and controlled by CISF.
4. Brief facts are that all the claimants have filed their claim statement individually. As per claim statement there was a proposal from Gol to establish a Petrochemical Plant at Village Pata in District Auraiya which was named asU.P. Petrochemical Pata/Gas Authority of India Limited (in short Gail ) . the Government of India vide their notification dated 3-2-86 has also provided a provision to the effect that the villagers whose land will be acquired for establishing the above project , a member of such family will be provided with employment under the opposite party apart from payment of compensation for acquiring of their land . This was made effective only after the plant came in operation.
9. It is stated that for setting up of the said plant, inconsonance of the decision of the Government of India, U.P. Government has acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act. All the land losers including the so called claimants concerned had already been paid compensation by the State Government as per the award of the Special LAO Etawah . Further, the employer had also paid adequate compensation to the home losers for their rehabilitation onthe basis recommendation of a Committee . It is stated 5. It is further alleged that State of U.P. also issued a letter dated 29-02-96 addressed to the Director Land Acquisition , where it was mentioned that a member of such family of land losers will be provided with a job under the opposite party. Similarly there was an order dated 15-6-85 of the State of UP to the same effect . On the basis of letter of Senior Manager of the opposite party as well 1770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
14. Claimant has adduced on Sri Ral Kumar who is one of the claimant as W. W.I.
15. Opposite party has adduced MW I Sri Kishan Pal Yadav who is Deputy Manager Gail Pata and Sri Vishnu Prasad Panda a senior officer as M.W.2 .
16. Opposite party has adduced documentary evidence i.e. photo copy of tax card of the employees of civil department for the year 2001-02 (page no . 11 /2-11). Photocopy of Tax Card of the employees of Civil Department / Horticulture for the year 2001/2001 ( page no.ll / 12-21 ) , photocopy of attendance register of the employees of Civil Department / Horticulture [ page no . 11/ 22-53 ] , photocopy of attendance register of the employees of civil department for the period from Jan 2001 to November 2001 [ page no . 11 /54-641 .
that notice of the department of Public Enterprise dated 3-2-86 clearly provides that over manning has to be guarded against and any understanding formal or informal in regard to the offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn. There is no obligation of the employer to provide any employment to any member of such family in consequence of acquisition of the land when the proper compensation has already been paid . There is no provision under said statute to provide job to the land losers . The enterprise being the unit of Government of India , the recruitment is carried out as per the recruitment rules or the policy after notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange etc. The decision taken in the meeting dated 29-6-98 is not binding to provide direct employment to the land losers . Any instruction issued by the State Government is not applicable to Central Public Enterprise like Gail .
17. The aforesaid documents have been fully proved and exhibited as Ext . E - l toEA in oral evidence of the opposite party.
10.The so called applicant were never engaged by the Gail , there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the opposite party and so called applicants .
18. I have examined the documents filed by the claimant and inquired from the Auth . Representative for the claimant as to whether there was any such document which may prove the direct relationship of master and servantbetween the contesting parties . He could not draw my attention towards any such documents . It is contended thatGail is a public sector enterprise under the adges of Ministry of Petroleum Government of India and registered as a Company. It has set a petro piant Pata District Auraiya, thisplant is of a highly sensitive nature. With a view to protect the plant from any insurgent type activities and for the purpose of safety specialized security namely CISF was deployed by the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India. The entry into the plant premises is regulated and controlled by CISF.
11.It is alleged that they were engaged by a Cooperative called GKVSSL and the said cooperative controlling the so called applicants . Gail has out sourced and contracted out certain activities of peripheral nature to a contractor as a step towards providing in direct employment opportunities to the local populous . The outsource activities includes upkeep and maintenance of horticulture in plant and town Ship . The contractor had engaged some of the land losers to accomplish the aforesaid job . These land losers have been engaged in Dharna agitation demanding employment since long but the situation worsted when the land losers employed through the contractors launched Dharna demanding employment through Gail . The said Samiti is a cooperative society formed by Gail employees and is registered as thrift and credit society. Gail is not , providing any financial support to this society. Gail has no control over the activities of the societies . These land losers continued to resort agitation and on several occasions resorted to violence by attacking the Gail employees and also created a sense of insecurity amongst the employees . On account of continued hostile attitude of the land losers the said society informed that they would no more provide horticulture and forestation service and the said society discontinued the job of upkeep and maintenance awarded to the society with effect from 1-10-01 .The attendance of these so called applicant was maintained by the society and the payment was also made by the society. Gail authority has no role to play. No temporary gate passes has ever been issued to the so called applicants by the employer. They were not the workmen directly employed under the opposite party. Therefore question of terminating the services of the so called applicant does not arise .
12. No rejoinder has been filed in the case .
19. It is stated that for setting up of the said plant, inconsonance of the decision of the Government of India , U.P. Government has acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act. All the land losers including the so called claimants concerned had already been paid compensation by the State Government as per the award of the Special LAO Etawah . Further, the employer had also paid adequate compensation to the home losers for their rehabilitation onthe basis of recommendation of a Committee . It is stated thatnotice of the department of Public Enterprise dated 3-2-86 clearly provides that over manning has to be guarded against and any understanding formal or informal in regard to the offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn. There is no obligation of the employer to provide any employment to any member of such family in consequence of acquisition of the land when the proper compensation has already been paid . There is no provision under said statute to provide job to the land losers . The enterprise being the unit of Government of India , the recruitment is carried out as per the recruitment rules or the policy after notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange etc. The decision taken in the meeting dated 29-6-98 is not 13. Both the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence .
1771
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
that the workman had worked continuously for 240 days will rest upon the workman and not upon the management .
binding to provide direct employment to the land losers . Any instruction issued by the State Government is not applicable to Central Public Enterprise like Gail .
25. Likewise the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Ganga Nagar Mills limited versus State of Rajasthan and another in 2004 ( 103 ) FLR page 102.
20. The so called applicant were never engaged by the Gail , there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the opposite party and so called applicants.
26. Therefore in my view the workman has failed to establish that they have continuously worked with the Gail/ opposite party under the relationship of master and servant for 240 days in a calendar year. There is no such evidence which may prove the relationship of master and servant between contesting parties .
27. In this case the opposite party has alleged that the Gail employees had formed a thrift and credit society but this society was not under the direct control or supervision of Gail . No payment was ever made to such society by Gail . For a short period the said samiti has taken the work from the so called applicants but when these . applicants started dharna and agitation and disrupted the work of the employees then the employees decided to discontinue the operation of the said samiti .
28. The opposite party has also placed reliance upon a full bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar versus District Magistrate Agra in 2005 ( 1 ) UPLBEC page 118 wherein held - appointment in lieu of acquisition of land - held - Land Acquisition Act nowhere provides giving of service in addition to compensation to the effected person , thus GOs or Circulars are inconsistent with schemes and provisions of the Act.
29. Therefore , the plea of the claimant that their land have been acquired and there was a promise to employ one member ofthe family of the land losers and they have been given employment in lieu ofthe land evictees is also not tenable .
30. It is contended by the auth. Representative for the workmen that they are the direct employees of the opposite party and showing them to be the employee of contractor or samit is a sham contract.
21. It is alleged that they were engaged by a Cooperative called GKVSSL and the said cooperative controlling the so called applicants . Gail has out sourced and contracted out certain activities of peripheral nature to a contractor as a step towards providing in direct employment opportunities to the local populous . The outsource activities includes upkeep and maintenance of horticulture in plant and township . The contractor had engaged some of the land losers to accomplish the aforesaid job . These land losers have been engaged in Dharna agitation demanding employment since long but the situation worsned when the land losers employed through the contractors launched Dharna demanding employment through Gail . The said Samiti is a cooperative society formed by Gail employees and is registered as thrift and credit society. Gail is not providing any financial support to this society. Gail has no control over the activities of the societies . These land losers continued to resort agitation and on several occasions resorted to violence by attacking the Gail employees and also created a sense of insecurity amongst the employees . On account of continued hostile attitude of the land losers the said society informed that they would no more provide horticulture and forestation service and the said society discontinued the job of upkeep and maintenance awarded to the society with effect from 1-10-01 . The attendance of these so called applicant was maintained by the society and the payment was also made by the society. Gail authority has no role to play. No temporary gate passes has ever been issued to the so called applicants by the employer . They were not the workmen directly employed under the opposite party.
31. They have placed reliance upon a decision Civil Misc . Writ Petition No. 8608 of 1994 Bam Shaker Dixit versus Labor Court -2 U.P. Kanpur and others .
22. It is a fact that no appointment letter has ever been issued to these applicants , their names have never been sponsored by the employment, and there is no such cogent oral or documentary evidence from which it can be inferred that the salary or the wages were being paiddirectly by the opposite party to these claimants . W W. I has admitted in his cross examination that there are no such documents .
32. I have respectfully gone through the decision . I have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case there is no direct or indirect evidence wherein the claimants could claim they have been in direct employment or continuously worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year . The evidence adduced by the claimants on this point is not acceptable . They have failed to establish their claim , hence claim cannot be decided in their favor.
23. It is alleged by W. W. I that there was a deduction ofEPF from his salary but there is no documentary proof in respect to this saying, even he does not know the EPF number.
33.Accordingly it is held that the claimant are not entitled for any relief and the reference is therefore , decided against them .
34. Let a copy of this award be placed on the record of each connected case . Dated: 21-1-2013
RAM PARKASIH , Presiding Offcer 24. The opposite party has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of MP Electricity Board versus Hari Ram 225 LLR page 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held - in the absence of documentary proof about continuous working of the workman pertaining to a particular period , the initial burden ofproof to establish 1772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2013 /PHALGUNA 18, 1934
[ PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2013
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
: Mr. S.P. Dhulapkar , Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMEN
:Mr. T.R. Shirke Representative.
Mumbai , dated the 30th November 2012 .
AWARD
का.आ. 582.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स मार्यन फारवाडिंग कॉरपोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. 2/70 आफ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -31012/03/2004- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th February, 2013
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L - 31012/ 3 /2004- IR ( B- II ), dated 04-05-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Maryn Forwarding Corporation , Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Amrutrao Bajirao Chaudhari w.e.f. 01.07.2004 is justified? Ifnot, what relief Shri Amrutrao Bajirao Chaudhari is entitled to ? " S.O. 582.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 70 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Maryn Forwarding Corporation and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-02-2013 .
[No. L-31012/03/2004- IR (B - II ) ]
SHEESH RAM, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2/ 70 of2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M / S MARYN FORWARDING CORPORATION
M/ s Maryn Forwarding Corporation
C/o Shri Sanjay P. Dhulapkar 104, 1st floor, Bobby Aots 143 , L.J. Road Mahim (W) Mumbai 400016
AND THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Amritrao Chowdhari Shankar Colony A-Block, 564 B -Chawl , Room No. 3 Ulhasnagar Distt . Thane 421 004.
2.After receipt of the reference both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice the second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex- 5. According to him he was employee of the first party. Initially he was employed in the year 1980 by the sister concern ofthe first party. They were required to work hard for 22 hours a day. In 1982 the workman was made permanent . In the year 1983 Markand Patel had conducted a meeting ofthe workman and declared that he had taken a decision to close the unit and he sought consent of the workman to close the establishment . All the workmen joined Maharashtra General Kamgar Union/Association of Engineering Workers led by Dr. Datta Samant. The union strongly opposed the closure of the establishment from back door method and also bent upon for 8 hours shift. In 1982 the first party restarted 22 hours day shift and large number of workmen left the company due to harassment and torture by the management. The employer also retrenched 51 workmen in 2003. The said action was arbitrary and without following due process of law. Again in July 2004 the company decided to retrench 56 employees and effected their termination . Union opposed the said termination as it was illegal without due process of law. The employer did not allow 33 employees to resume their duties and they were kept out of employment forcibly including the workman . They approached the management to follow the due processrocess of law. The management then suspended the work and all the workmen were kept out of employment . There were series of meetings which resulted in agreement between parties on 11-8-2004 . It was agreed that, the management would follow seniority of employees strictly in case of retrenchment and to allow the remaining employees to resume their duties from 13-8-2004 . The workman being the senior most went to resume duty on 13-8-2004. But he was not allowed to resume his duty and 1773
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
he was told that he would not be -taken on job . The second partyworkman pointed out through union to the first party that , retrenchment of senior most by retaining juniors is totally illegal and improper. They pointed out that action of the management was arbitrary . However the first party did not consider the request of the second party and illegally terminated services of the second party. Therefore second party has raised industrial dispute . As conciliation failed, as per report of ALC, the Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal . The workman prays that , his termination be declared illegal , improper and bad in law and he be reinstated with continuity of service and full backwages .
3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex- 26. According to them the second party was working with the first party as a Supervisor . He was performing the work of supervisory nature . He was not a workman . Therefore the reference is not tenable . According to them M /s . Maryn Forwarding Corporation and M / s . Mac Transport Co. are two independent establishments having separate Board of Directors . They are not sister concerns as has been alleged. For all purposes they are totally independent . The first party is unaware that, the second party was employed in 1980 by M / s . Mac Transport Co.and he was made permanent . They also denied about the meeting conducted by Makranth Patel in 1983. In 1988 first party has taken overM/ s . Lift and Swift and absorbed their 185 workers . In 1996-97 the company started experiencing downward trend in the business volume . The situation was aggravated further on account of shifting of some of the work of Bombay Port to Nhava Sheva Port . On account of reduction of work there was substantial fall in the business ofthe company. Due to poor financial condition they could not offer VRS Scheme or statutory retrenchment compensation to the workers . Company was completely sick and unhealthy in terms of finance . The company had discussions with the union representatives of MbPT and settlement was arrived at . As per the settlement the permanent workers on muster roll were listed category wise to decide surplus workers and to decide about the workers to be retained. It was agreed that seniority list reflecting the date of joining and also date of birth of all the employees were listed . List was prepared and finalised by the union itself. The union also gave list of workers and supervisors whose services were to be terminated as they are rendered surplus . The union has also given list of employees to be retained on the basis of seniority reckoning and also the age and service in the current category. The lists were displayed on the notice board of the company. None of the employees whose names were on the list raised objection for being included in the respective lists . The lists were prepared as per the negotiations and agreement with the union. The second party was member of the union and the settlement is binding on the second party. The claim of the second party isfalse and his allegations are also false that his services were terminated illegally. According to them the allegation of retrenchment was false as Section 2 (oo) and Section 25 F has no application in the present case as second party is not a 'workman' . The company terminated the services of the second party legally. They have satisfied the conditions prescribed thereunder. Thus they pray that the reference be dismissed with cost.
4. Following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Findings Issues
Sr. No.
Yes
1. Issecond party'workman' ?
No.
2. Isaction of first party just and proper?
Asper order below.
3. What relief second party isentitled?
What order ?
4.
Asper order below.
REASONS
Issue no . 1 :-
5. In this respect , it is the case of the first party management that , the second party was working as a Supervisor. He was doing supervisory and managerial duties. Therefore he was not 'workman' . In support of his argument the Ld . adv. for the first party resorted to Bombay High Court ruling in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V/s . D. Samuel and ors . 1998 II CLR 736 wherein by considering the duty and nature of work, pay scale etc. , the Hon'ble Court in that case held that;
"After considering exhaustively the case law on the point and documentary evidence on record, it is held that the respondent falls within the definition of supervisor. "
6. In that case the petitioner was delegated duties ofrecommending leave , calling for requisition from stores and evaluating the work of employees below him . At the time ofpromotion he was informed that he was part of the management and was liable to be transferred anywhere in the country. He accepted the same . He participated in various programmes organised by the company for its managerial personnel . He was designated as Supervisor. In the light of all these evidence , the Hon'ble Court in that case held that the respondent therein was not ' workman ' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this respect the Ld . adv. also resorted to Delhi High Court ruling reported in Young Women's ChristianAssociation of India V/s . Smt . Jyotsana Paul 2005 LLR 68 ( DEL HC) . In that case the respondent therein was doing supervisory work . Her recurring responsibilities
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1775
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
included ensuring high standard of discipline amongst reterchment was required to be effected and the juniors AWARD
staff, sanctioning of leave and controlling absenteeism . In ORDER
the circumstances , Hon'ble Court declared that , respondent ought to have retrenched first . In this respect it was
(1 ) The reference is partly allowed with no order as submitted on behalf of the first party that the list of 1. Central Government , MoL , vide notification
was not ' workman ' within the meaning of Section 2 (s ) of the I.D. Act . to cost. No.L- 17012/15 /94 /IR B - II dated 13-06-94 has referred the
employees to be retrenched was submitted to them by the
following dispute for adjudication . union and they have retrenched the employees as per the
(2) The retrenchment of workman is declared as illegal 7. In this respect I would like to point out that list submitted by the union. According to them the name
and unjustified. Whether the action of the management of Life
nomenclature or designation of the employee is not of the workman was in the list of employees to be Insurance Corporation of India, Lucknow, in imposing
important to find out whether he is a workman or not. On (3) In- stead of reinstatement the first party is directed retrenched, sent by the union . According to them there the penalty ofreduction of salary to the minimum in
the other hand nature of work he is performing is important to pay compensation to the workman to the tune of was settlement with the union . It is further submitted that the time scale on Sri Harsh Singh Rawat Assistant
factor in determining whether the employee is workman or Rs . 1,00,000 for his illegal retrenchment . as the workman is member of the same union , he cannot
not . Ratio to that effect is laid down by Hon'ble Apex vide their order dated 23-04-83 is justified ? If not
Date: 30-11-2012 challenge the retrenchment effected as per the direction of whatrelief is the said workman entitled to ?
Court in S.K. Maini V /s . M/s . Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. AIR the union. In this respect I would like to point out that as
1994 SC . 1824 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that , there is K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer per clause 2 of the agreement Ex- 44 , the parties have Brief facts of the case are as under.
distinction inwhat an employee is engaged to do and what नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2013 accepted the principle ' first come last go ' and accordingly 4. In the instant case this tribunal has already
he does . In the case at hand the second party has the list ofworkers found surplus to be retrenched category
contended in his affidavit at Ex- 33 that, he was employed का.आ. 583.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 recorded its findings vide award dated 02-01-97 , which wise was annexed as Annexure- B . However Annexure-B
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन on 20-5-1980 . He was required to report for duty at 8.00 a.m. was challenged by the opposite party before the Hon'ble does not bear signature of the office bearers of the Union.
बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के in the morning . He was allotted work by either loaded HighCourt. On the other hand list of surplus worker is given in
बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक container, booking in - charge or empty container booking Annexure- B and in Annexure - C list of workers retained is 5. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15-07-08
in- charge . One Mr. Prakash was in- charge of loaded has remanded the case , holding that the findings are not given. It also does not bear signature of any office bearer
अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/94 ) container whereas Mr. Poojary was incharge of empty ofthe Union. From both these lists apparently it is seen
को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2013 को clear cut findings and the tribunal shall decide the dispute
container. He used to get list of containers in advance . He afresh. What happen in this case, the then learned that, the workman was senior most as he joined in June
प्राप्त हुआ था । used to tally sheets and challan book. He was required to Presiding Officer in its award has held that thus on one 1980 and all others joined thereafter. The workman being
go to the destiny/ points as per the directions of above [सं. एल-17012/15/94- आई आर (बी- II)] handthere had been defective evidence of the management senior most as per the accepted principle first come last go,
incharge to discharge his duty. After verifying container शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी whereas on the other hand there had been evasive reply his name ought not to have been reflected in the list of
the same used to be loaded on the trucks of the company. by the concerned workman . In between the two in my employees to be retained . As both the lists does not bear
He used to check the seal of the containers and number of New Delhi, the 14th February, 2013 opinion the evidence of the management was of much better signature of any office bearer of the union , it cannot be
containers .All these details were filled up in the log sheet quality. Hence the enquiry officer had rightly arrived at the said that these lists were sent by the union to the company
and given to the driver. He was required to prepare tally S.O. 583. In pursuance of Section 17 of the to retrench these employees and to retain the others
sheets and fill up all information as provided in the tally Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central conclusion against the concerned workman in accepting
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/94) especially as seniority rule is not reflected in these lists . In the evidence of management . At this point the Hon'ble
sheets. Entire work that he was required to discharge was short, the version of the first party is not acceptable that
purely of clerical nature . These averments in his affidavit of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, the workman was retrenched as per the list submitted to High Court has found that the findings of the tribunal is
Ex- 33 are not challenged or denied. Therefore the mere Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial them by the union . The union is also not expected to give not specific and directed that the case be decided afresh .
designation as Supervisor is not sufficient to show that Dispute between the employers in relation to the go by to the principle ' first come last go ' . There is no 6. Inthis case one Pratap Singh Negi has got his life
the second party was not workman . From the contents in management of LIC of India and their workman , which evidence on record to show that these lists were sent by insured vide policy no 28128587 which commenced from
his affidavit, it is revealed that he was doing the work of was received by the Central Government on 14-02-2013. the union recommending the name of the workman to 01-07-75 . In this policy his wife Mathuli Devi was the
clerical nature and not as a managerial or supervisory. In [No. L- 17012/ 15/94 - IR (B - II ) ] retrench before the other employees junior to him . In this nominee . Pratap Singh Policy holder died on 01-05-77m
the light of above observation of Apex Court and the SHEESH RAM , Section Officer back drop I come to the conclusion that the workman being hence his heirs claimed for the amount of policy for which
evidence on record, I hold that though designation of ANNEXURE and bad in law. senior most, his retrenchment earlier to his junior was illegal his life was insured . During that course it was found that
the second party was shown as supervisor , he was doing premium for July 76 was not paid. Hence the heirs of the
work of clerical nature . Therefore I hold that the second BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING deceased produced one certificate dated 08-10-77 to show
party was a workman within the meaning of sec . 2 (s) of I.D. OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 9. In this respect the Ld . Adv. for the first party has
Act. Thus , Idecide the issue no . 1 in the affirmative . submitted that in 2008 the functioning of first party was that premium for the month July 76 was paid on 11-10-76.
TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Similarly another certificate dated 25-2-78 was produced to
Issues nos . 2 & 3 :- closed. At present the company is not at all functioning.
Industrial Dispute No. 53 of 94 Therefore there is no point directing reinstatement. Looking show that premium for this month was paid on 30-07-76.
Between into the facts and circumstances of the ase and as the first Finding inherent conflicts in the two receipts showing
8. In this respect according to the second party payments of the premium in July 76 , the matter was
workman , he is the senior most amongst all the workmen. party company is closed four years after retrenchment of
Sri SC Dikshit, the second party workman . No doubt the workman had investigated . During this period the concerned workman
Therefore while effecting retrenchment the juniors ought President Luknow Mandal Insurance lost wages of 4 years . As unit is closeddirecting H. S. Rawat was posted as Assistant as Branch Office
to have retrenched first . According to him , he being senior Employees Association , reinstatement of the workman is of no use . In the Almorah . Duringthe investigation it was found that actually
most ought to have retrenched last as per rule ' first come 2nd Floor 30 Hazaratganj , no premium was paid by the deceased for the month of
last go' . On the point the first party has not disputed that Lucknow circumstances , to meet the ends ofjustice. I think it proper
the second party workman joined the service in June 1980 . to direct the first party to pay compensation to the second July 76 and two receipts mentioned above were prepared
They have also not disputed the fact that the workman And party workman to the tune of Rs . 1,00.000 . Accordingly I by the concerned workman for giving undue benefit to the
was one of the senior most employees of the company. In Divisional Manager , decide the issue no . 2 in the negative and issue no.3 in the heir of the deceased in getting their money under the said
LIC of India , umstances as per the settled rule : first come last go , affirmative that workman is entitled to the reliefby way of policy. Hence the charge sheet dated 18-02-81 was issued
30, Hazratganj , compensation . Thus I proceed to pass the following order. to the concerned workman levelling the following
Lucknow charges.
756GI/2013-8
1776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )]
7. That you prepared and got issued a certificate dated 18-2-77 under the said policy on the life of Sri Pratap Singh Negi certifying that the premium due in July 1976 stood paid on 11-10-76 without verifying the facts of payment.
16. In the instant case after examining the evidence of the workman the tribunaldo not find any kind of illegality committed by the inquiry officer during the conduct of the inquiry against the Workman . No allegations have been levelled against the inquiry officer by the delinquent employee .
8. That you also prepared and got issued another certificate dated 25-02-78 under the said policy certifying the same premium during July 1976 having been paid on 30-07-76 again actually verifying the facts that the premium was paid or not.
17. The inquiry officer after appreciating the whole evidence available on the record of inquiry has recorded a rational finding which was concurred by the disciplinary authority and the workman was awarded the punishment in question.
9. The concerned workman has submitted his reply on 2-07-81 , which was not found satisfactory. Hence U.C. Saxena was appointed as enquiry officer who has completed his inquiry and submitted the report of inquiry before the disciplinary authority. On considering the report of the inquiry office the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment as referred to in the reference order.
18. Even before this tribunal the workman has not levelled any allegation either against the inquiry officer or against the disciplinary authority. Therefore , under these set of circumstances of the case one and only one interference that can be drawn that even according to the own admission of the workman there had been no illegality in the conduct of disciplinary action against him.
10. In the claim statement the fairness and proprietary ofthe inquiry report was questioned . Apart from this it was denied that these two receipts were prepared by him .
19. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman had given an evasive reply against the allegations levelled against him. This will construe that the allegations levelled against him is admitted to him . If it was not so why he has not clearly replied the allegations either in negative or positive and if it is not so in his evidence , then the evidence ofthe management is reliable and can be very well accepted at a piece of evidence against the workman which proves the charges of his own evidence.
11. In the written statement the opposite party has maintained that the inquiry was fairly and properly held and the concerned workmen was given full opportunity of his defense and they have not violated any provision of natural justice . It was also stated that it was the concerned workman who had prepared these two receipts or certificates in order to shower undue benefit upon the heirs of the deceased. Hence the claimant is not entitled for any relief.
12. Hence the following preliminary issue was framed-
13. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper ?
20. Therefore considering the observation of the Hon'ble High Court it is held that since the workman has not given clear cut evidence in support of his defense either before the inquiry officer or before this tribunal though he was given full opportunity after the remand of the case .
21. Considering the overall aspect ofthe matter, it is concluded that the charges levelled against the workman fully stands proved from his on action and conduct as well as management has also proved the charge against him.
14. The management has filed the copy of the entire record relating to domestic inquiry which was produced before the inquiry officer including two forged certificates allegedly issued by the concerned workman . Bhupender Singh Negi is the complainant of this case beside B.C. Joshi is an Assistant , DN Opreti is the ABM (A) , he had fully supported the version of the management. In rebuttal there was evidence of the concerned workman SriRawat.
22. Therefore , the punishment imposed upon the workman does not warrant any kind of interference at the hands of the tribunal .
23. Therefore , it is concluded that the action of the management in imposing the penalty vide their order dated 23-04-83 is justified and consequently the workman is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.
24.Accordingly reference is answered against the workman and in favour of the management .
Date: 1-2-2013
15. In view of the above , I have given my anxious considerations to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence brought on the record of the inquiry. Although it is legally correct that Industrial tribunal.cannot sit over the findings ofthe inquiry officer as an appellate authority, but at the same time it is equally correct to say that the Tribunal has got an ample power to consider the fact as to whether or not inquiry was held validly or not.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer 1777
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2013
India, to adjudicate the issue as described in the Schedule below:
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 584.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैनेज़मैन्ट आफ कानटोनमैन्ट बोर्ड , शिलांग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गोहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 09/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the demand of the Shillong Cantonment Board Employees Union for the revision of Pay Scale of Sri Ghana Shyam Sharma , Sri L.B. Waiva and Sri Tarlok Singh at par with the similarly placed employees of the State Government of Meghalaya , is legal and justified , if so to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which dates ? "
[सं. एल -13011 /01 /2007 - आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013
S.O. 584.- In pursuancence of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Cantonment Board, Shillong and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-02-2013 .
[No. L- 13011/01 /2007- IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
2. On perusal of the record it appears that the workmen namely Sri Ghana Shyam Sharma @ Ghanashyam K. Joshi and L.B. Waiva were appointed as Mali under the Cantonment Board, Shillong vide their letter No. 3-27/2/X/C dated 16-9-72 and No. 3-27/5/ 142/C dated 21-12-78 and both of them were promoted to the Postof Fitter vide letter No. 91-1/41 /C dated 15-9-1980 and Office Order No. 223 dated 11-2-1992 respectively. The workman Sri Tarlok Singh was appointed as Safaiwala under Cantonment Board, Shillong vide order No. 179 (A) dated 29-7-1970 and he was subsequently appointed as Fitterwith effect from 5-4-94 vide Office Order No. 54 dated 5-4-94, and retired on superannuation on 28-8-2007 . The above workmen had been performing their duties as Fitter and they were examined by the GE , Shillong and accordingly they have passed the Trade Test examination . Asper the Memorandum of settlement of 1963 the Pay and Allowances ofthe Cantonment Board's employees has been equated with those of similar categories of employees of the State in which the Cantonment Board is situated .
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present : Mr. L. C. DEY, M.A. , LL.B.
PresidingOfficer,
CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Guwahati
Ref. Case No. 09 of 2007
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute between :---
The Management of Cantonment Board, Shillong, Meghalaya .
-Vrs-
Their Workmen Shri G.. Sharma and 2 Ors .
APPEARANCES
:
Management representatives Mr. D. Kalita, Mr. J. K. Kar
Workmen representative . :Mr. R.G. Pradhan
Date ofAward: 21-01-2013
AWARD
3. According to the workmen the Post of Fitter (Water supply) of Cantonment Board, Shillong has been equated with the Fitter , Class -Il of PWD , Govt . of Meghalaya , whereas it should have been equated with the Post of Fitter ( Water Works ) of the State Government , Grade- I since the workmen have acquired the requisite qualification for the Post of Grade - I , Fitter and their pay should have been fixed in the Scale of Grade - I , Fitter of the State Government i.e. Rs . 1050-25-1175 -EB -30-1365-35- 1735 and after revision of the Scale of3100-70-3520-EB- 80-4160-90-5060 which the workmen were entitled to . But the Management , Cantonment Board, Shillong arbitrarily decided and equated the Pay Scale of Fitter (Water Works) ofthe Cantonment Board at per with the Clause - 18 of the Pay revision Schedule 1997 instead of Pay Revision Schedule Clause 16. In this connection , the representation made before the Management which did not pay heed to it rather the Cantonment Board had wrongly processed the case ofthe Fitter as it is seen from the letter No. 362629/ LC/xx/ Fitter/TY dated 26-6-2003 issued by the Principal Director , DE , Ministry of Defence , E.C. , Kolkata wherein it was refused to accept the proposal for changing the equation of Fitter of Cantonment Board, Shillong from equations with Fitters of PWD to the proposed one with 1. This reference case is arising out of Notification issued vide Memo No. L- 13011 / 1 /2007 - IR (DU) dated 16-8-07 issuedby the Ministry of Labour, Government of 1778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
the Plumber of PHE . Thus the wrong equation or interpretation of the equivalent post of Cantonment Board with the State Government as provided in the Memorandum of Settlement has caused irreparable loss to the Fitters of the Cantonment Board. As the Fitter (Water Supply) of the Cantonment Board is performing the same duty that of the Fitter (Water Works ) of State Government so the wrong equation of the Post and the disparity in the scale of Fitter (water supply ) with that to Fitter (Water Works) of State Government is not justified since they are discharging the same duty. Hence , the workmen prayed for passing order directing the Management Cantonment Board, Shillong to approach the higher authority for equation ofthe Post of Fitter ( Water Supply) with similarly placed post of Fitter ( Water works ) and the State Government of Meghalaya or give relief by directing the Management to equate the Post of Fitter ( Water Supply) with the post of Fitter (Water works ) with the State Government.
further contention of the Management is that as per the Dy. CE, PWD, Government of Meghalaya , though there exist no Grade- I and Grade- II of the Pipe Line Fitter, they have the Post of Water Works plumber of the same pay scale of Rs . 1050-25-1175-EB -30-1365-35-1735/-aand after revision Rs . 2650-50-2950- EB -60-3430-70-4130/- . The Fitters ofthe Management Board are getting revised pay scale of Grade- II Fitters and the question of giving the pay and allowance of Grade- l Fitters does not arise since the same has not been accepted by the Board and sanctioned by the competent authority as such , the fitters are paid whatever pay scale are applicable to them as per memorandum of settlement . The Management averred that the Fitters of their Office requested to change their designation and pay scale and accordingly the matter was placed before the Management Board which vide its resolution No. 11 dated 15-12-2004 decided that the Fitters of the Board do not fulfill the minimum qualification laid down for the post by the State Government of Meghalaya , PWD and hence, the proposal could not be accepted , and the Fitters were asked to acquire the requisite qualification within a period of 3 years . The Management denied the allegation that the case was not processed for changing the designation and revision of pay scale of the Fitter as per the resolution No. CBR 17 dated 5-5-1997, No.3 dated 7-7-1999 and No. 18 dated 29-4-2002 . According to the Management the case was forwarded to the competent authority and the State Authority turned down the proposal since the Fitters do not possess the requisite qualification for the Post as such, the Board rightly rejected the proposal and the Board has given the Fitters the scope to acquire the requisite qualification within the period of 3 years so that these Postcan be upgraded as per letter No. SHG/ I / Revision of Pay-Fitter/309dated 14-2-2005 .
4. The Cantonment Board , Shillong , Meghalaya, (herein after called the Management) contested the proceeding by filing written statement refuting the claim of the workmen. In their pleadings the Management of the Cantonment Board, Shillong admitted that 'Sri Ghanashyam Sarma@ Ghanashyam K. Joshi was initially appointed as Mali and subsequently promoted and appointed as Fitter vide their office letter No. 91-1 /41/C dated 15-9-1980 . Sri L.B. Waiva was initially appointed as Mali and subsequently promoted to the Post of Fitter vide their Order No. 223 dated 11-2-1992 . The Management also appointed Sri Tirlok Singh as Safaiwala and subsequently appointed him as a fitter with effect from 5-4-1994 vide their Office Order No. 54 dated 5-4-94 and the said workman retired on superannuation on 28-8-2007 . It is stated by the Management that the aforesaid 3 workmen had been performing their duties as Fitter and they were examined by the GE , Shillong as to whether they knew the job of Fitter , and the said three fitters Post , Trade Test conducted by the Engineer of the GE , Shillong. It is also mentioned in their W.S. that as per the memorandum of settlement the pay and allowances of the Cantonment Firm's service were equated with those of the counter part of the State Government establishment of the State in which the Cantonment Board is situated. However the Post of Fitter of the Cantonment Board was equated with that of the Class- II Post of Fitter of the PWD ofthe State Government of Meghalaya as per memorandum of settlement . Although the Fitter (the workman) demanded the pay scale of Grade- I Fitter of the State Government but the samewas not accepted by the Board since the Fitter do not fulfill the minimum qualification laid down for the Post by the State Government of Meghalaya , PWD in the similar category of staff employed by them . The Board/ Management resolved to ask the Fitters to acquire the requisite qualification within a period of 3 years . The
5. The Management Cantonment Board by filing the additional written statement contended that the Post of Fitter is a direct recruitment post and the departmental candidate can also be allowed to compete with the nominee of the employment exchange provided they fulfill all the conditions prescribed for the post. Age relaxation was extended to such candidates on the analogy of Department of Personnel Administrative reform . It is also stated that the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the employees and All India Cantonment Board Employees Federation that the cantonment board employees be broadly equated with those of similar categories of the State Government at the district level and equation be made as indicated in the settlement and also that the various matter be settled as recorded in the memorandum of settlement . As per para - 4 , qualification for the equated post as prescribed by the State Government shall be admissible and the post of Fitter in Shillong Cantonment Board has been equated with fitter Il class. PWD department , Government of Meghalaya . The qualification prescribed by the State Government was 1779
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
furnished by the PWD and accordingly the pay and allowances of the Cantonment Board employees had been equated as per memorandum of settlement but the promotion or the recruitment shall be governed under the Cantonment Fund Servant Rules , 1937. The management again averred that the memorandum of settlement arrived between the employees and the workmen cannot be debarred on the ground of trade test because the provision contains the qualification as well as the equation of post ; and the water fitter of Shillong Cantonment Board has been equated with that of PWD and hence , the change in equation with the PHE Department is not permissible under the memorandum of settlement . The fitter have applied for revision of pay scale and the proposal for the same was forwarded by the Board to the competent authority which decided that they cannot claim any other scale than what is provided in the memorandum of settlement and this was informed to the fitter concerned . Thereafter the workmen requested for change of designation as well as the pay scale which was also turned down on the ground of provision contained in the memorandum of settlement and the qualification prescribed for the post of plumber and it was resolved that fitter do not fulfill the minimum qualification and hence , they were asked to acquire the requisite qualification within a period of three years .
6. In order to ensure transparency and justice both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence and to submit documents in support of their respective claims . Accordingly the workmen examined 2 witnesses and exhibited the relevant documents . The Management also submitted the evidence - on - Affidavit of one Sri J.V. Singh buthe could not be cross - examined due to non -appearance of the said witness in spite of allowing the Management sufficient opportunities for producing the said witness and ultimately the Management did not appear before this Tribunal and thereafter the hearing of both the parties has been closed and the case has been proceeded ex -parte . Accordingly the argument from the workmen side was heard.
7. Decision and reasons thereof :
I have perused the entire case record along with the evidence adduced by both the parties and the documents available on record . The vital and material issue raised in this Reference is whether the demand for revision of pay scale of the Fitter of Shillong Cantonment Board Employees namely Sri Ghana Shyam Sarma @ Ghanashyam Khanal Joshi , Sri L.B. Waiva and Sri Tarlok Singh at par with the similar pay scale granted to the employees of the State of Meghalaya by the Government of Meghalaya, is legal and justified.
It isan admitted fact as it reveals from the pleadings of both the sides that the workmen of the Shillong Cantonment Board namely Ghana Shyam Sarma @ Ghanashyam Khanal Joshi , Sri L.B. Waiva were originally appointed as Mali & Sri Trlok Singh was appointed as Safaiwala by the Cantonment Board and subsequently they were appointed as Fitter and they performed the duty of Fitter ( Water works ) from the date of their respective promotion. The workman witness No. 1 Sri Ghanashyam K. Joshi @ Ghanashyam Sarma has stated that he was appointed as labour ( Mali ) in 1972 in the scale of Rs . 80-130 p.m. vide Ext.1 and subsequently he was promoted and appointed as Plumber/ Fitter . He also mentioned that as per the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties the Pay and Allowances of the Cantonment Board Employees have been broadly equated with those of similar category of employees of State Government but the Post of Fitter ( Water Supply) of Cantonment Board , Shillong has been equated with FitterClass - II of PWD , Government of Meghalaya where as it should have been fixed/equated with the post of Fitter (Water Works ) of the State Government as per revision of the Pay of the State Government under 3rd and 4th Pay Commission . Due to wrong interpretation of the Cantonment Board regarding classification or regularization of the Post of Fitter ( Water Works ) of Cantonment Board as Fitter Class - II of the State Government the workman has been facing heavy financial loss and accordingly he was drawing the pay scale of Fitter, Class - 11 in the revised pay scale of Rs . 2650-4130 P.M. which would have been under the categories of pay scale of Rs . 3100-5060 Ρ.Μ. which he entitled to . The workman witness no . 1 contended that as per revision of Schedule, Clause- 16 he was legally entitled to the pay scale ofRs . 3100-5060 P.M. but arbitrarily, it was decided and placed on the Clause - 18 of the said Pay Revision Schedule , 97 which ought to have been corrected but the authorities did not pay heed to the representations made . In support ofhis statement the workman witness No. I has submitted his appointment letter marked as Ext . 1 , the letter regarding hispromotion and appointment as Fitter marked as Ext . 2, the extract from the Meghalaya Service ( Revision of Pay ) Rules , 1988. The Meghalaya ( R.O.P. ) Rules , 1980 .
The workman witness No. 2 , Sri L.B. Waiba in his evidence in Affidavit mentioned that he was appointed as labour ( Mali ) in the year 1979 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Fitter ( Water works ). He also mentioned that as per memorandum of Settlement concluded in 1963 , the pay and allowance of the Cantonment Employees have been equated with those of the similar category of the employees of the State Government , but as per the Schedule of memorandum of settlement , 1963 the Fitter ( Water works ) of Cantonment Board, Shillong had been equated with Fitter Class - II of the PWD whereas it should have been equated with the Post of Fitter (Water works ) of the State Government as per the pay revision of the State Government as per 3rd and 4th Pay Commission . The said witness further 1780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
mentioned that from the very inception of the memorandum of settlement the post of Fitter ( water works ) of Cantonment Board , Shillong had been classified/ categorized as Fitter , Class - II of the PWD of State Government wrongly as the Post of Fitter (water works ) of the State Government and accordingly he has been drawing the pay scale of Rs . 2650-4130 p.m which ought to have been under the category of pay scale Rs . 3100-5060 Ρ.Μ. He also added that as per pay revision , Clause - 16 he was legally entitled to the pay scale of Rs . 3100-5060 P.M. but arbitrarily it was decided and placed on the Clause- 18 of the State Pay Revision which ought to have been corrected but the authority did not pay heed to the Revision.
The Management , Cantonment Board , Shillong although submitted the evidence- on-Affidavit sworn in by Sri J.B.Singh , in support of their pleading, he could not be cross - examined by the workman due to failure of the management to produce the witness concerned and as such , the testimony of management witness has lost its evidentiary value . Although in his testimony Sri J.B.Singh admitted that appointment of the workman namely Ghanashyam Sharma @ Ghanashyam Khanal Joshi , L.B. Waiba and Sri Tarlok Singh as Fitters , which is a direct recruitment post . He added that the qualification for the equated post as prescribed by the State Government shall be applicable , and the employer and the workman had inter alia agreed that the Pay and Allowances of the Cantonment be broadly equated with those of employees of State Government employees at District level and with the equation be made in the settlement, and accordingly the postof Fitter ( water supply) was indirectly equated with the Fitter , Class - II , PWD .
said settlement , clause - 20 of the Settlement , as aforesaid , wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if any question arises relating to the interpretation or implementation of these terms of settlement and also in cases of error or discrepancy the matter shall be referred for decision to such person as the Secretary Ministry of Defence may generally or specially nominate in this behalf and the decision of such nominee shall be final and binding . It will be open to the Secretary , Ministry of Defence, to nominate any officer ofthe Ministry of Defence . This nominee will, however, give an opportunity to a representative of the Federation on being heard before giving his decision. The Schedule of the Memorandum of Settlement in respect of the Cantonment Board, Shillong in serial No. 16 column-3 and 5 it has been clearly mentioned that the Water Mistry the existing designation of all the Post has been made Fitter ( Water Supply ) as proposed designation of the Post , and said post of Fitter ( Water supply ) has been equated with the Post of Fitter, 2nd class , PWD under StateGovernment . As such , the equation of the terms and conditions as well as the equation of the Post as mentioned inSchedule of the Memorandum of Settlement is binding upon the worker Union of Shillong Cantonment and they could take the recourse of Clause -20 of the Memorandum of Settlement. Section 18 ( 1 ) of the I.D. Act provided that settlement , as defined in Section 2 ( P ) of the I.D.Act , arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workmen otherwise then in course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement ; and it will remain in operation for the purpose as provided in Section 19 (2) of the Act . In this connection I am inclined to refer the decision of the Bombay High Court in Poona Mazdoor Sabha - vs - G.. K. Dhutia reported in 1956 (2 ) LLJ 319 ( Bom ) that despite absence of any such specific provision as to the reason of the Industrial Dispute with regard to a matter which is a subject of settlement arrived at u/ s 12 in operation , in accordance with Section 19 (2 ) neither the Industrial Dispute can be raised with regard to the matter covered by the settlement nor can such matter be the subject matter of a conciliation during the period of operation of settlement. Similar view has been taken by Division Bench ofMyshor High Court and a Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Workers and Staff of ASSN of Government Shop Factory--- vrs --- State of Myshore ( 1971 ) LAB IC 79 and Anglo Indian Jute Mills Company Ltd. -Vrs - 5th Industrial Tribunal ( 1971 ) LAB IC 58 ( Calcutta) .
8. From the pleadings of both the sides and the documents filed by both the sides it appears that as per memorandum of settlement (Ext - A) executed between the Cantonment Boards and All India Cantonment Board Employees Federation , have , inter - alia, agreed that the pay and allowance of the Cantonment Board Employees be broadly equated with those of similar categories of the State Government at district level and have further agreed that the equation of the Cantonment Board Employees in each of the various Cantonments be made as indicated in the settlement and that the various matters be settled as recorded in this Memorandum of Settlement . It is agreed upon both the parties that whenever any State Government carries out any General Revision of pay scale of their employees a similar Revision be undertaken by the GOC- in-Chief, the command, on the basis of equated posts mentioned in column 5 of the Schedule .
9. Thus it is clear that the settlement was arrived at between the parties and the same came into force with effect from the 1st day of September, 1967 and the workmen have accepted the terms of settlement and accordingly they are drawing the pay and allowance etc. in terms of the
The workmen concerned of the Shillong Cantonment have submitted representation for fulfillment of their demand for change of the nomenclature of the Post of Fitter and salary hike which was turneddown by the Management and they remained silent for a long period, as itappears fromthe record. They also did not raise the issue through their All India Cantonment Board Employees Federation before the Secretary . Ministry of Defence , as 1781
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
per the terms appended in Clause - 20 of the Memorandum ofSettlement .
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIA TRADE MARKS REGISTRY
APPEARANCES :
10. In view of my above discussion and having regard to the pleadings and evidence of both the sides as well as the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement executed between the All India Cantonment Board Employees Federation and the representative ofthe Employees ( the Cantonment Boards in India ); and also taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above , it can be opined that Reference ofthe present dispute u/s 10 of I.D. Act , during the period of settlement , is barred by such settlement . Accordingly it is held that the demand of the Shillong Cantonment Board Employees Union for revision of Pay Scale of Sri Ghanasyam Sarma @ Ghanasyam K. Sarma , L.B. Waiba and Sri Tarlok Singh at per with the similarly placed employees with the State Government employees of Meghalaya is not legal and justified and as such , the workmen concerned are not entitledto any relief.
The Administrative Officer Government of India Trade Marks Registry Intellectual Property Bhavan Near Antop Hill Road S.M. Road, Antop Hill Wadala Mumbai -400 037. AND THEIR WORKMAN . Shri Santosh Bhausaheb Jadhav Residing at Room no . 1 Jyotirling Nagar Mankhurd Mumbai-400 043 . FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Vinod Joshi , Advocate . FOR THE WORKMAN : In person .
Send the Award to the Government as per procedure.
Mumbai dated the 4th January, 2013 .
AWARD
Givenunder my hand and seal of this Court on this 21st day of January, 2013.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer,
नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2013
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No. L -42012/ 95/2011 - IR ( DU), dated 20/31-01-2012 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 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
का.आ. 585. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एडमिनिश्टेरेटिव ऑफिर , ट्रेडमार्क रजि. , वडाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिंक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. 2/7 ऑफ 2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को (05-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai in terminating the service of Shri Santosh B. Jadhav, ex- casual labour w.e.f. 31-03-2009 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "
[सं. एल -42012/95 /2011- आई आर ( डीयू) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013
S.O. 585. In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/70 of2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , No. 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Administrative Officer , Trade Mark Registry , Wadala and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 05-02-2013 .
(2) After receipt of the order of reference from Ministry, notices were served on both the parties . In response to the notice , second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex -4 making out his case . First -party management filed their Affidavit in reply cum written statement at Ex - 5 . Issues were framed at Ex- 7 . The matter was fixed for filing documents and list of witnesses by the parties .Meanwhile second party workman filed application dated. 12-12-2012 ( Ex - 8 ) requesting to allow him to withdraw the matter with liberty to file fresh matter before appropriate authority. Representative of the first party management endorsed her say and orders were passed on Ex -8 and the application to withdraw the reference was allowed . Thus the order:
[No. L-42012/95/2011 - IR (DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ORDER
ANNEXURE
Reference is dismissed as withdrawn.
No order as to cost .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI
Date: 4th January, 2013
K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/7 of 2012 1782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 18, 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2013
referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Senior Superintendent RMS JP Division , Jaipur in terminating the services of workman Shri Chet Ram w.e.f. 07-12-2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to ? "
का.आ. 586. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ड्राइरेकटर, पोस्टल सर्विस , जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -40012 /109/2011- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013
2. Even before the filing of the statement of claim the workman has moved an application for withdrawal of this case . He has submitted in the withdrawal application that he does not want to pursue this case as he has already filed a case at Jaipur branch of CAT. In view of the prayer made by the workman in his application, the reference sent by the Govt . of India to this Tribunal for adjudication stands disposed of and award is passed accordingly. Dated: 15-01-2013
SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2013
S.O. 586.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111 / 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the Director , Postal Service , Jaipur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 08-02-2013 .
[No. L -40012/109/2011 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
का.आ. 587. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रिन्सीपल , केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , फतेहगढ़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 191/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/45/1999 आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013 IN THE COURT OF SHRI SATNAM SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , ROOM NO . 33 , BLOCK - A GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX. KARKARDOOMA DELHI - 110032
ID No. 42/08
In the matter between :
Dated: 15-01-2013
Shri Chet Ram son of Shri Chhote Lal , Resident of D - 93 , Gokul Puri ,
S.O. 587.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 191/99) of the Central Government Ir.dustrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya , Fatehgarh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-02-2013.
New Delhi - 110094.
...Workman
Versus
[No. 1-42012/ 45 / 1999 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
1. The Director,
ANNEXURE
Postal Service , Jaipur Region ,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , JS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 191/99
2. The Senior Superintendent , Railway Mail Services , Jaipur Division, Jaipur,
Between-
Rajasthan.
...Management
AWARD
Sri Kutwal , C/ o Sri P.D. Yadav, Loco Colony Dada Nagar, Kanpur.
And
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No.L - 40012 / 109 / 2011 - IR ( DU ) dated 12-03-2012 has 1783
भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ThePrincipal ,
Kendriya Vidyalaya, RCC, Fatehgarh .
AWARD
dilapidated öld building of the School for which he was paid and the furniture etc. , to be shifted to the new building. He was being paid R.25 / - per day but the payment was made on monthly basis according to the convenience of the claimant . He was engaged under an oral agreement . It has also been denied by the opposite that the claimant had never completed 240 days or more preceding 12 calendar months from the date ofhis termination .
1. Central Government vide notification no . L-42012 / 45/99/IR(DU) dated 27-07-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-
7.Opposite party has never issued any certificate in the name ofthe claimant for his working and if there is any such certificate that is forged one .
2. " Whether the action of the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fatehgarh, in terminating the services of Sri Kutwal , with effect from 08.11.95 , is legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
3.Brief facts are-
8. Claimant has filed rejoinder but nothing new has been given, therein . However it has been claimed by the workman that the opposite party has made payment for the month of June 95 through cheque and had also issued a certificate showing the working period 13-3-95 to 09-11-95. In the rejoinder it has also been alleged that the opposite party has breached the provisions of section 25F, G and H of theAct.
9. Both the parties have filed documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective claims .
10. Claimant has adduced himself in oral evidence as w.w.f whereas the opposite party has adduced Sri R P Tripathi , as M.W.1 .
11. It has been contended by the opposite party that the claimant was never appointed on the post of Chowkidar or peon . His name does not find place in the attendance register. The relevant documents have been filed in original before the tribunal .
4. It is claimed by the claimant that he was engaged as Chowkidar / Chaprasi at Rs.25 per day w. e . f. 13th March 1995 , on the permanent post of Chowkidar / Chaparasi by the opposite party. He continuously worked till 07-11-95 for over 240 days . He has given the details of hisworking period in paragraph no. 2 ofhis claim statement. It is further alleged by the claimant that he was not paid his wages for the working days of the period of Month November 95 for which he moved an application under the provisions of payment of wages Act 1936 and got direction in his favör and recovery proceedings are pending. It is alleged that after completion of 240 days at the time of dispensation of his services by the management , they have neither offered any notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation , therefore , the dispensation for the services ofthe claimant is in violation of the provisions of industrial disputes Act as well as is against the principle of natural justice . Therefore, he has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
12. It has been alleged that the certificate filed by the claimant is paper no . 51/1 , wherein the claimant has added or interpolated the word " Group D " Post, therefore this certificate becomes fictitious document . Opposite party has also filed the report of the hand writing expert as M.W.2 Rakesh Tewari . His evidence appears to be believable.
13. 1 have also examined the certificate paper no 51/1 . There appears to be interpolation wherein the word Group D post appears to have been added , therefore , the claimant cannot take the benefit for regular appointment .
14. 1 have examined the other documents filed by the claimant like payment details which is paper no. 17/1 and payment vouchers .
that the claiman 5. Opposite party has also contested the claim of the petitioner by way of refuting the claimi of the claimant Vahemently. It is stated that it is absolutely wrong to allege wae ever engaged as Chowkidar or Chaprasi by the management . There never existed any relationship of master and servant between the management and the claimant, it also false to alleged that the.opposite party has ever paid any amount as salary to the claimant, it is also alleged that when there remains no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the management , the question of compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act does not arise . In the end it has been prayed that the claim of the claimant is not within the scope and ambit of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, therefore , the present reference deserves to be rejected holding that claimant is not entitled for any relief against the management .
15. From these documents and oral evidence adduced by both the parties it can be easily inferred that the claimant has been engaged by the opposite party as casual labor and he remained engaged as such with effect from 13-03-95 till 7-11-95 . Thus from the above it is concluded that the workman remained in continuous employment for over 240 days preceding 12 calendar months before the date of termination of his services .
6.However by a passing way it has been admitted by the opposite party that the claimant was engaged as a casual labor to remove the Malva and furniture etc. , of the
756GI /2013-9 1784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
(PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013
S.O. 588.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 293/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .
16. Therefore, having concluded that the claimant remained in the continuous service of the opposite party for over 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his termination . As such it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party to have complied with the provisions of section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by offering him notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation at tle time of terminating the services of the claimant . This having not done, the termination ofthe services of the claimant cannot be held to be legal and justified.
[No. L- 22012 /236/ 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 293/2003
Date: 06-02-2013 PartyNo. 1 (a)
17. It has been contended by the authorized representative for the workman that such type of workman though undereducation department but falls in the definition ofindustry. He has placed reliance upon a lading case the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board versus A Rajjappa and others Civil No. 753-754( T) of 1975, wherein the subject of Education has also been discussed at length . I would like to reproduce the working at page no.153 and 154 where the Australian Judge Isaacs, Justice J who substantiate the thesis that education is not merely industry but the mother of Industries . Therefore considering the nature of work and other aspect of the case I hold that the claimant falls in the definition of workman and the management is also covered under the definition of Industry.
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur -440015 . PartyNo. 1 (b)
18. The tribunal considering all the aspect of the matter has come to the conclusion that it would be in the fitness ofthe things ifthe claimant is awarded Rs.25000 as compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in the services of the opposite party.
The Senior Regional Manager. Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road , Churchgatye, Mumbai -400020 .
Versus
Party No. 2
19. Accordingly it is held that the claimant is entitled for Rs.25000 as Compensation instead of his reinstatement. Therefore , the opposite party is directed to comply with the award within a period of two months from the date of the publication of the award.
20. Reference is answered accordingly.
Date . 23-1-2013
RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer
TheSecretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , HindNagar Ward No , 2 , Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha , Distt, Wardha (M. S.)
नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013
AWARD
(Dated: 6th February, 2013 )
का.आ. 588.-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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 293/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/236/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
Inexercise 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 Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Diwakar Khushab Waghmare , for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 22012 /236 / 2003 - IR ( CM- II ) dated 08-12-2003, with the following schedule :---
1785 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M. S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Diwakar Khushab Waghmare , Security Guard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and Justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Diwakar, Khushab Waghmare ( " the workman " in short ) , filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .
therefore , his orai termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore , it was the mandatory duty of the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .
Itis further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. I was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No.1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles , such as, torch , lathi , whistle and uniform etc to him and in view ofthe long spell of work being carried out by him , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .
The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 14-10-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No.1 , as a Security Guard and he was In continuous service without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No.1 , without following thedue procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No.1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25- F of the Act and after his illegal termination , fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision of section 25 -H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor , the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 14-10-1993 to 14-03-1999 , without any break in service and,the workman didnot complete 240 days work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regularisation and Abolition) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman The further case of the workman is that in 1993 he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny hislegitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and 1786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
4. Both parties have, led oral evidence in support of their respective claims , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence .
The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness . In his evidence , which is on affidavit , the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim .
against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go -downs are filled with food grains , then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.
In his cross -examination , the workman has admitted that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to the FCI and FCI had not given any advertisement for the said post and he does not know the name of the contractor and no appointment order was given to him , either by the contractor or the FCI and he has not filed any document to show that salary was paid to him by FCI and he cannot say for how many years he served in FCI and no termination order was issuedby FCI and Mr. Bokade terminated him orally and initially, he was getting Rs . 700 as salary, but he cannot say the break - up of his salary, such as basic , DA and other allowances and he has not filed any document to show that he served with FCI from 1993 to 1999. The workman has admitted that he was appointed through Singh Securities Services .
The further case of party no . 1 is that for the reliefs as claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman .
The further case of party no . 1 is that the appropriate Government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman , they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article , such as torch , Lathi , whistle and uniform etc to the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.
5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on behalf of the party no . 1 has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement , in his examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit . In his cross - examination , this witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had obtained any license from the competent authority for engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI and he was engaged for watch and ward of go -downs and the workman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply contract labourers had the required license for the same but copy of such license was not filed and the process of engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details of the process of engagement of contractors and during the general election to the Parliament , FCI had submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of employees submitted to the collector . This witness has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go- downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The. witness has further stated that payment of wages to the workman was being done through the contractor as per the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was not making any deduction from the said wages towards PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt . Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was 1787
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .
6.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 14-10-1993 at Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party no.1 , without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman , neither one month's notice nor one month's wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman , as required under Section 25 - F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman , fresh hands were engaged by party no. 1 to extract the duties of security guard , in violation of the provision of Section 25 -H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature , hence the termination ofthe workman is void and illegal .
procedure oftermination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the party no. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system , Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no.1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon 'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such , the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon 'ble High Court operates as res -judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
8. First of all , I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res -judicata , due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the party no . I had shown the workman as contract labour , but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working . under the direct control and supervision of the party no . 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the party no. I was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before the Hon ' ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur , for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition , it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work ofthe Food Corporation of India and in view of the same , they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India , since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature . However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:
It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . 1 has admitted the claims made bythe workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
"Inview of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd, and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others (reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1 ), the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
XX
XX
XX
XX
In view of the rejection of the main prayer , the question of granting other prayer does not arise . In 7. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such , the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement , the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services ofthe workman were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was no question of party no.1 complying with the due 1788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ - 4 ( supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that
case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year . The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances. "
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress . Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata . So , there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 .
" Briefly stated , when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing todo with the manner of handling work done by the contractor , the labour force employed by him , payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation , there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation andthe workmen . " Workmen " has been defined (omitting the words not necessary ) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean ( any person including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do.. The expression' employed has at least two known connotations , but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience . The essential condhion of a person being a workman within the terms ofthe definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be , in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a " workman " within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.
9. In this reference , it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no . 1 as a security guard . In the very beginning of the statement ofclaim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Wardha as a security guard , through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim , the workman has mentioned that , " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no . I on papers showed the change of contractors , but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature , he is entitled for reinstatement in service . The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no . I implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra ( 19571LLJ477 ) . Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union . "
11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :-
From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross - examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed through Singh Securities Services , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he wasdirectly engaged by the Party No. 1 .
10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported in 1985-11 LLJ -4 ( S.C. ) (The workman ofthe Food Corporation of India Vs M / s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 ( S.C. ) ( Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication , or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10 ( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub- section 1789
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 9 , 2013/फाल्गुन 18 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors .But , the presence of some or all those factors , provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) by the appropriate Government , is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme 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 it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a 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 .
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10 ( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employinent of . contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under . If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract abour 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 concerned establishment . If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour . It otherwise found suitable , and , if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age ofthe workers at the time oftheir initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications .
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999 , D/-12-8-1999 (Cal ) : C.O. No. 6545 (W ) if 1996 , D/-9-5-1997(Cal ): W.A. Nos . 345-354 -'of 1997m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant ) : W.P. No. 4050 of 1999 , D/ - 2-8-2000 ( Bom ) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999 , D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom ) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 ( Cal ) , Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour " , " Establishment " and "Workman " does not show that the legal relation- ship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have. direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour . When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation ofdirect relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) ofthe CLRA Act . A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under. "
So , keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the present case in hand is to be considered .
12. In this case , the letter No. U -23013/ 11 / 89/ LW dated 28-05-92 , Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping , cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Givernment . So , the engagement of contract labour by the Party. No.1 cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that : the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. I was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time , Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same . As itis clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman . Hence , there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance ofthe provisions of Sections 25 - F or 25 - H of the Act .
1790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 18 , 1934
[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 26 फरवरी , 2013 13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman is a necessary party in the reference . The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.
का. आ. 590. केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित है कि ताबा खनन उद्योग में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 13 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए ।
In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman . Hence , it is ordered: -
ORDER
The reference is answered in workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योगों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।
नई दिल्ली , 26 फरवरी , 2013
[सं. एस 11017/ 11/97- आई आर ( पीएल ) ] चन्द्र प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi , the 26th February, 2013
S.O. 590.- Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services inthe ' Copper Mining Industry ' which is covered by item 13 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947) , should be declared to be a ' Public Utility Service' for the purposes of the said Act .
का.आ. 589. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 अप्रैल, 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 पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:
ग्राम का
हदबस्त तहसील जिला
क्रम सं
नाम
संख्या
1.
गागोवाल
79
मानसा मानसा
2.
गेहले
78
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers Conferred by sub -clause (vi ) of clause ( n ) of Section 2 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a ' Public Utility Service ' for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months .
मानसा मानसा
[सं. एस -38013/ 14/2013 - एसएस -1 ]
[No. S- 1017/11/ 97-1R (PL ) ] CHANDRA PRAKASIH , Jt . Secy.
नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव
नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2013
New Delhi , the 26th February, 2013
का.आ. 591.-राष्ट्रपति , श्रीमती मलीरेड्डी विजया लक्ष्मी को14-02-2013 से केद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण सह श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद , के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 65 पर्ष की आयु पूरी होने अर्थात् 31-03-2018 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो नियुक्त, करते हैं ।
[सं. ए-11016/4/201! सीएलएस-11 ] अ जोशी , अवर सचिव S.O. 589. 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 April , 2013 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- 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 Punjab namely :-
New Delhi , the 26th February, 2013
Hadbast Tehsil District
Sr. No.
No.
Name ofthe Village
1.
79
Gagowal
Mansa Mansa
2.
Gehle
78
Mansa Mansa
S.O. 591. The President is pleased to appoint Smt.Malireddy Vijaya Lakshmi as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad w.e.f. 14-02-2013 till she attains the age 65 years i.e. upto 31-03-2018 or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[No. S- 38013/ 14/2013 -SS- I ] NARESH JAISWAL , Under Secy.
[No.A - 11016/4/2011 -CLS - II ] AJAY JOSIII , Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.