3390 GI/2013

(4719)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1687.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] paMhx<+ dh fnukad 24

tqykbZ] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ 20@6@2013&3,pth&I }kjk izkIr

lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½

dh /kkjk 34 vkSj 302 rFkk vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼1959 dk 54½

ds v/khu fnukad 20 tqykbZ] 2013 dks iqfyl Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl]

xqM+xkao esa iathd`r ,QvkbZvkj lañ 501@2013 esa rFkk mi;qZDr

mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr ;k muls lac) vijk/kksa esa fd, x,

iz;klksa] nq"izs.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgha

rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus

ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

{ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr gfj;k.kk jkT; ds laca/k esa djrh gSA

[lañ 228@53@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpoA

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1687.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of

1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh

vide Notification No. 20/6/2013-3HG-I dated 24th July, 2013,

hereby extends powers and Jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the

State of Haryana for investigation of FIR No. 501/2013 dated

20th July, 2013 under sections 34 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Arms Act, 1959

(54 of 1959) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon

and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or

in connection with the above mentioned offences and any

other offence or offences committed in the course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/53/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 33]

ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 11—vxLr 17] 2013] '[email protected] 20—Jko.k 26] 1935

No. 33]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 11—AUGUST 17, 2013, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 20—SRAVANA 26, 1935

Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

4720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1688.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, ef.kiqj jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] bEQky dh fnukad 20

ebZ] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ 12@1¼1½@2013&,p¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk

izkIr lgefr ls iqfyl Fkkuk dkdfpax esa Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu%izHkkoh

inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 ¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 61½ dh /kkjk 21

vkSj 29 rFkk vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ¼1969 dk lañ 54½ dh /kkjk

27 ds rgr eksjsg esa rSukr 11 iqfyl dekaMks dfeZ;ksa dh fnukad

28&04&2013 dks iYysy ls Hkkjh ek=k esa xSjdkuwuh eknd inkFkZ ds

lkFk fxj¶rkjh ls lacaf/kr iathd`r ekeyk ,QvkbZvkj lañ

62@¼04½2013 esa mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr ;k muls

lac) vijk/kksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izs.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh

laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k

vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds

lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr ef.kiqj jkT;

ds laca/k esa djrh gSA

[lañ 228@43@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1688.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

of 1946 ), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Manipur, Home Department, Imphal

vide Notification No. 12/1(1)/2013-H(CBI) dated 20th May,

2013, hereby extends powers and Jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole of the State of Manipur for investigation of FIR No.

62(04)2013 under sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985)

and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959)

registered at Police Station Kakching relating to arrest of

11 Police Commando personnel posted at Moreh with large

consignment of illegal drugs on 28.04.2013 from Pallel and

attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in

connection with the above mentioned offences and any

other offence or offences committed in the course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/43/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1689.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ubZ fnYyh fLFkr loksZPp

U;k;ky; vkSj fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; rFkk ijh{k.k U;k;ky;ksa ¼vèhuLFk

U;k;ky;ksa vkSj l= U;k;ky;ksa½ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir vkjlhñ 05@¼,l½@2007@

,llh;w&V@,lh;w&IX@ ubZ fnYyh ¼estj tujy ohñ dsñ flag]

lsokfuo`r vkSj vU; O;fDr;ksa ds fo#) lhchvkbZ ekeys½ esa

vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa vkSj fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa bl ekeys ls mRiUUk

vU; ekeyk rFkk bl ekeys ls lacaf/kr vU; ekeyksa dk ijh{k.k

lapkfyr djus ds fy, Jh chñ vkjñ gkUMk] ofj"B odhy dks fo'ks"k

yksd vfHk;kstd ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 225@59@2012&,ohMh-II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1689.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri B.R. Handa, Senior Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting trial of RC 05 (S)/

2007/SCU-V/ACU-IX/New Delhi (CBI case against Maj.

Genl. V.K. Singh, Retd. and others), instituted by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of

Investigation) in Trial Courts (Subordinate Courts and

Sessions Courts), Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court

at New Delhi or other related matters as well as for appeals,

revisions or other matters arising out of the said case in

any of the courts.

[No. 225/59/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼fofÙk; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1690.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh eqds'k dqekj tSu

¼tUe frfFk% 01-08-1960½] egkizca/kd] nsuk cSad dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] iatkc ,aM fla/k cSad ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1690.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4721

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Mukesh

Kumar Jain (DoB: 01.08.1960), General Manager, Dena Bank

as Executive Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, for a period of

five years from the date of his taking over charge of the

post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1691.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jkds'k lsBh ¼tUe

frfFk% 28-06-1956½] egkizca/kd] cSad vkWQ bafM;k dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 30-06-2016 rd vFkkZr~ muds

}kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1691.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Rakesh

Sethi (DoB: 28.06.1956), General Manager, Bank of India as

Executive Director, Union Bank of India, with effect from

the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto

30.06.2016 i.e., the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1692.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh HkqoupUnz chñ tks'kh

¼tUe frfFk% 03-12-1956½] egkizca/kd] cSad vkWQ bafM;k dks muds

}kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 31-12-2016 rd vFkkZr~

muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1692.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri

Bhuwanchandra B. Joshi (DoB: 03.12.1956), General

Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director, Bank of

Baroda, with effect from the date of his taking over charge

of the post and upto 31.12.2016 i.e., the date of his attaining

the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1693.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh /kkjk 19 ds [k.M ¼[k½ vkSj /kkjk 20 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh v#.k/krh Hkêkpk;Z

¼tUe frfFk % 18-03-1956½] mi izca/k funs'kd] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 31-03-2016 rd

vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/

k funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 2@3@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2013

S.O. 1693.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of section (19) and sub-section (1) of Section 20

of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central

Government, after consultation with Reserve Bank of India,

hereby appoints Smt. Arundhati Bhattacharya (DoB:

18.03.1956), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India

as Managing Director, State Bank of India, from the date of

her taking over the charge of the post and upto 31.03.2016

i.e. the date of her attaining the age of superannuation or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 2/3/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

4722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1694.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk Jh t; dqekj xxZ ¼tUe

frfFk% 10-01-1960½] egkizca/kd] dkiksZjs'ku cSad dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ;wdks cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1694.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Jai Kumar

Garg (DoB: 10.01.1960), General Manager, Corporation Bank

as Executive Director, UCO Bank, for a period of five years

from the date of his taking over charge of the post, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1695.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk Jh vkjñ dksVhLoju ¼tUe

frfFk% 10-06-1956½] egkizca/kd] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 30-06-2016 rd vFkkZr~ muds

}kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1695.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri R

Koteeswaran (DoB: 10.06.1956), General Manager, Bank of

Baroda as Executive Director, Bank of India, with effect

from the date of his taking over charge of the post and

upto 30-06-2016, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1696.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk Jh fd'kksj dqekj lkalh

¼tUe frfFk% 19-08-1957½] egkizca/kd] vksfj;aVy cSad vkWQ dkelZ

dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 31-08-2017 rd

vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] iatkc ,aM fla/k cSad ds

dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1696.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Kishore

Kumar Sansi (DoB: 19.08.1957), General Manager, Oriental

Bank of Commerce as Executive Director, Punjab & Sind

Bank, with effect from the date of his taking over charge of

the post and upto 31-08-2017, i.e. the date of his attaining

the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1697.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4723

fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh iz|qeu flag

jkor ¼tUe frfFk% 16-05-1956½] egkizca/kd] cSad vkQ bafM;k dks

muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 31-05-2016 rd

vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] dsujk cSad ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1697.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Pradyuman

Singh Rawat (DoB: 16.05.1956), General Manager, Bank of

India as Executive Director, Canara Bank, with effect from

the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto

31-05-2016, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1698.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vfues'k pkSgku ¼tUe

frfFk% 30-06-1957½] egkizca/kd] cSad vkQ cM+kSnk dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 30-06-2017 rd vFkkZr~ muds

}kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lsUVªy cSad vkQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1698.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Animesh

Chauhan (DoB: 30.06.1957), General Manager, Bank of

Baroda as Executive Director, Central Bank of India, with

effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post

and upto 30.06.2017, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1699.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh v#.k JhokLro ¼tUe

frfFk% 17-06-1957½] egkizca/kd] cSad vkQ cM+kSnk dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 30-06-2017 rd vFkkZr~ muds

}kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1699.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Arun

Shrivastava (DoB: 17.06.1957), General Manager, Bank of

Baroda as Executive Director, Bank of India, with effect

from the date of his taking over charge of the post and

upto 30.06.2017, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1700.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh r`".kk xqgk ¼tUe

frfFk% 21-08-1957½] egkizca/kd] bykgkckn cSad dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 31-08-2017 rd vFkkZr~ muds

}kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

4724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] nsuk cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i

esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1700.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Smt. Trishna

Guha (DoB: 21.08.1957), General Manager, Allahabad Bank

as Executive Director, Dena Bank, with effect from the date

of her taking over charge of the post and upto 31.08.2017,

i.e. the date of her attaining the age of superannuation or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1701.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] ;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k

ds egkizca/kd Jh Vhñdsñ JhokLro ¼tUe frfFk% 25-07-1956½ dks

01-09-2013 dks ;k mlds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk

31-07-2016 rd vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus

dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] flafMdsV

cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013

S.O. 1701—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri T.K.

Shrivastava (DoB: 25.07.1956), General Manager, Union

Bank of India as Executive Director, Syndicate Bank, with

effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post on

or after 01.09.2013 and upto 01.07.2016, i.e. the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

¼jktLo foHkkx½

¼dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ½

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1702.—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk

;g vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh]

1962 ¼mDr fu;ekoyh½ ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr

vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼mDr vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&èkjk

¼1½ ds [kaM (ii) ds ^^us'kuy bafLVV~;wV vkWQ esaVy gsYFk ,.M U;wjks

lkbal ¼,uvkbZ,e,p,,u,l½] caxykSj] ¼iSu&,,chVh,u 6120ch½

dks 2012&13 ls fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu ^fo'ofo|ky;] dkWyst

;k vU; laLFkku* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] uker%—

(i)

vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud

vuqla/kku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk(

(ii) vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius

ukekafdr Nk=ksa ds ek/;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/kku djsxk(

(iii) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds laca/k esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk] ftlesa

vuqla/kku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k

esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh [kkrk&cgh

dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

139 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr

djus dh fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/kor

lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ] ekeys esa

{ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj

funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk(

(iv) vuqeksfnr laxBu izkIr nku vkSj lacaf/kr foHkkxksa ds lacaè

esa oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx

fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk

ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk fof/kor lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh

izfrfyfi izLrqr djsxkA

2- dsUnz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu%—

¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk cgh j[kus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus eas vlQy jgrk gS(

vFkok

¼x½

iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk

fooj.k izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4725

¼?k½

viuk vuqla/kku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds

vuqla/kku dk;Z dks lgh ugha ik;k tk,xk( vFkok

¼³½

mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM

(ii) ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk vkSj mudk ikyu

ugha djsxkA

[vf/klwpuk lañ 60@2013@Qkñ lañ 203@36@2012@vkñdñfuñ&II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1702.—It is hereby notified for general

information that "National Institute of Mental Health and

Neuro Science" (NIMHANS) Bangalore, (PAN-

AABTN6120B) has been approved by the Central

Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section

(1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act),

read with Rule 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962

(said Rules), for 2012-13 onwards in the category of

'University, College or Other Institution', subject to the

following conditions, namely:—

(i)

The sums paid to the approved organization

shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out

scientific research through its faculty members

or its enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain

separate books of accounts in respect of the

sums received by it for scientific research, reflect

therein the amounts used for carrying out

research, get such books audited by an

accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-

section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and

furnish the report of such audit duly signed and

verified by such accountant to the Commissioner

of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax

having jurisdiction over the case, by the due

date of furnishing the return of income

under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said

Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a

separate statement of donations received and

amounts applied for scientific research in respect

of concerned Departments and a copy of such

statement duly certified by the auditor shall

accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the

approval if the approved organization:—

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred

to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-

paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

received and sums applied for scientific research

referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the

provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of

section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and

5E of the said Rules.

[Notification No. 60/2013/F.No. 203/36/2012-ITA-II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1703.—dsUnzh; ljdkj _.k olwyh vf/kdj.k I, II vkSj III dksydkrk dh vofLFkfr ds 1 tqykbZ] 2013 ls dkWye 3 ds varxZr

of.kZr LFkku ls dkWye 4 ds varxZr of.kZr LFkku ij ifjorZu dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

Øñ lañ

_.k olwyh

LFkku tgka vf/kdj.k dk;Zjr Fkh

LFkku tgka ij vf/kdj.k dk;Z djsxk

vf/kdj.k

(i)

_.k olwyh

8oka ry] 9] iqjkuk iksLV

9oka ry] ^thou lq/kk*

vf/kdj.k&I,

vkWfQl ekxZ] dksydkrk&700001

42lh] tokgjyky usg: jksM

dksydkrk

dksydkrk&700071

(ii)

_.k olwyh

15 ,u] usYybZ lsuxqIrk lj.kh

7oka ry] ^thou lq/kk*

vf/kdj.k&II,

¼pkSFkk ry½] gqMdks fcfYMax]

42lh] tokgjyky usg:

dksydkrk

dksydkrk&700087

jksM] dksydkrk&700071

(iii)

_.k olwyh

7oka ry] ukxkySaM gkÅl] 11 ,oa

8oka ry] ^thou lq/kk*

vf/kdj.k&III,

13] 'ksDlih;j lj.kh] dksydkrk

42lh] tokgjyky usg:

dksydkrk

jksM] dksydkrk&700071

[lañ 33@1@1999&MhvkjVh]

jktho 'kekZ] voj lfpo

4726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1703.—The Central Government hereby notifies the change in the location of Debt Recovery Tribunals-I, II & III,

Kolkata from the place mentioned in column 3 to the place mentioned in column 4 in the table with effect from 1st July, 2013.

S.No.

Debts Recover

Place where the Tribunal

Place at which the

Tribunal

was functioning from

Tribunal will function from

(i)

Debts Recovery

8th Floor, 9, Old Post

9th Floor, 'Jeevan Sudha'

Tribunal-I,

Office Street Kolkata-

42C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

Kolkata

700001

Kolkata-700071

(ii)

Debts Recovery

15 N, Nellei Sengupta

7th Floor 'Jeevan Sudha'

Tribunal-II,

Sarani (4th Floor), HUDCO

42C, Jawaharlal Nehru

Kolkata

Building, Kolkata-700087

Road, Kolkata-700071

(iii)

Debts Recovery

7th Floor, Nagaland

8th Floor 'Jeevan Sudha'

Tribunal-III,

House, 11 & 13,

42C, Jawaharlal Nehru

Kolkata

Shakespeare, Sarani

Road, Kolkata-700071

Kolkata

[No. 33/1/1999-DRT]

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1704.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vkjñ vkRekjke

¼tUe frfFk% 27-10-1956½] egkizca/kd] vkU/kzk cSad dks muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 31-10-2016 rd vFkkZr~ muds

}kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkQ egkjk"Vª ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 4@5@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1704.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings),

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri R.

Athmaram (DoB: 27.10.1956), General Manager, Andhra

Bank as Executive Director, Bank of Maharashtra, with effect

from the date of his taking over charge of the post and

upto 31.10.2016, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

¼dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr½

t;iqj] 7 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1705.—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961¼1961 dk 43oka½ dh /kkjk

10 ds [k.M ¼23 lh½ dh mi&/kkjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fu/kkZj.k o"kZ

2012&13 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr /kkjk ds mís'; ls ^^Jh jke ,twds'ku

lkslkbVh] vyoj** ¼LFkkbZ [kkrk la[;k&AACAS2090P) dks Lohd`fr

nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 10 ds mi&[kaM

¼23lh½ dh mi&/kkjk (vi) ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

[vf/klwpuk lañ 06@2013&14@Øekad eqvkvk@vvkvk@

¼eqñ½@ t;@10¼23lh½(vi)@13&14@2536]

vrqys'k ftany] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)

Jaipur, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1705.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur

hereby approves "Shri Ram Education Society" for the

purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2012-13 onwards.

Provided that the society conforms to and complies

with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of

section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA

of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[Notification No. 06/2013-14/No. CCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/

10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/2536]

ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4727

t;iqj] 7 vxLr] 2013

¼lañ 07@2013&14½

dkñvkñ 1706.—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961¼1961 dk 43oka½ dh /kkjk

10 ds [k.M ¼23 lh½ dh mi/kkjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] t;iqj ,rn}kjk fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2012&13

,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr /kkjk ds mís'; ls ^^fpukj ,twds'ku QkmaMs'ku]

vyoj** ¼LFkkbZ [kkrk la[;k&AAATC6420A) dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

2- c'krsZ fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 10 ds mi[kaM ¼23lh½

dh mi/kkjk (vi) ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA

[Øekad eqvkvk@vvkvk@ ¼eqñ½@ t;@10¼23lh½(vi)@ 13&14]

vrqys'k ftany] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 7th August, 2013

(No. 07/2013-14)

S.O. 1706.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur

hereby approves "Chinar Education Foundation, Liwari,

Jaipur Road, Alwar" for the purpose of said section for

the A.Y. 2012-13 onwards.

Provided that the society conforms to and complies

with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of

section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA

of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2013-14]

ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

d`f"k ea=ky;

¼d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1707.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa d`f"k ea=ky;] d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx ds lEc)

dk;kZy;] vFkZ ,oa lkaf[;dh funs'kky;] d`f"k Hkou] ubZ fnYyh ds

varxZr fuEufyf[kr iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu dk;kZy;ksa dks ftlds

80% deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/ku Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/klwfpr djrh gSA&

foi.ku vklwpuk ,dd] vFkZ ,oa lkaf[;dh funs'kky;] d`f"k

ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] dsUnzh; lnu ifjlj] lSDVj&10]

CykWd&,] nwljh eafty] dejk uañ 211] fon~;k/kj uxj] t;iqj

¼jktLFkku½&302023

foi.ku vklwpuk ,dd] vFkZ ,oa lkaf[;dh funs'kky;] d`f"k

ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] nwljh eafty] gky&2] dsUnzh; Hkou]

lSDVj ,p vyhxat] y[kuÅ&226024

foi.ku vklwpuk ,dd] vFkZ ,oa lkaf[;dh funs'kky;] d`f"k

ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] IykWV uañ th&11] fryd uxj] 'kksfiax

lsaVj ,Q&2] izFke ry] y{eh ifjlj] conh;k dkyk]

Hkksiky&462039

foi.ku vklwpuk ,dd] vFkZ ,oa lkaf[;dh funs'kky;] d`f"k

ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ch&301] dsUnzh; lnu] csykiqj uoha

eqEcbZ&400614

foi.ku vklwpuk ,dd] vFkZ ,oa lkaf[;dh funs'kky;] d`f"k

ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] x`g la[;k&5,@65 vYiuk ekdsZV ds

iwoZ iadt vikVZesaV ds ihNs] ikVyhiq= dkyksuh] iVuk&800013

[lañ 3&3@2011&jkñHkkñ uhfr]

vkjñ chñ flUgk] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)

(O.L. DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1707.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of the

Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes

of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby

notifies the following offices which are under the

administrative control of the Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, New Delhi, an attached office of the Department

of the Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,

whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi:—

Market Intelligence Unit, Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India,

Kendriya Sadan, Block-A, Sector-10, Room No. 211,

V.D. Nagar, Jaipur-302023

Market Intelligence Unit,Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India, 2nd

floor, Hall 2, Kendriya Bhawan, Sector-H, Aliganj,

Lucknow-226024

Market Intelligence Unit, Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India, Plot

No. G-11, Shopping Centre, F. 2, 1st floor, Laxmi

Parisar, Tilak Nagar, Bhopal-462039

Market Intelligence Unit, Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India, B-

301, Kendriya Sadan, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614

4728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Market Intelligence Unit, Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India,

House No. 5A/65, East of Alpana Market, Behind

Pankaj Apartment, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013

[No. 3-3/2011-Official Language Policy]

R. B. SINHA, Jt. Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1708.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k]

la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkbZ,l 262%1982 QSjl lYQsV] gsiVkgkbZMªsV ds

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

31 tqykbZ] 2013

fy, fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

tqykbZ 2013

vkbZ,l 8325%1983 fudy mRizsjd ds

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

31 tqykbZ] 2013

fy, fudy Lo:i ds fy, fof'k"Vrk ¼igyk

tqykbZ 2013

iqjuh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 1040%1987 dSfY'k;e dkckZbM

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

31 tqykbZ] 2013

rduhdh ds fy, fof'kf"V ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

tqykbZ 2013

vkbZ,l 5321%1969 lksMk uhacw ds fy,

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

31 tqykbZ] 2013

fof'k"Vrk ¼dkcZu MkbvkWDlkbM 'kks"kd ds

tqykbZ 2013

:i esa½

bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ

fnYyh dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http:/www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV

ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ lh,pMh 1@vkbZ,l 262] 8325] 1040 vkSj 5321]

Mkñ jktho dsñ >kñ] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1708.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and year of the

No. and year of

Date from which the

Indian Standards

the amendment

amendment shall have effect

IS 262:1982 Specification for

Amendment No. 1

31 July, 2013

ferrous sulphate, heptahydrate

July 2013

(second revision)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4729

IS 8325:1983 Specification for

Amendment No. 1

31 July, 2013

nickel formate for nickel

July 2013

catalyst (first revision)

IS 1040:1987 Specification for

Amendment No. 1

31 July, 2013

calcium carbide, technical

July 2013

(third revision)

IS 5321: 1967 Specification for

Amendment No. 3

31 July, 2013

soda lime (as carbon dioxide

July 2013

absorbent)

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, Kolcatta 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. CHD 1/IS 262, 8325, 1040, 5321]

Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)

ubZ fnYyh 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1709.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k og LFkkfir gks x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ,lvks 20022&2% 2007

—

31 ekpZ] 2013

foÙkh; lsok,a & lkoZHkkSfed foÙkh;

m|ksx lans'k ;kstuk Hkkx 2 iathdj.k

fudk;ksa dh Hkwfedk vkSj nkf;Ro

vkbZ ,l 15413%2013@vkbZ,lvks

—

28 Qjojh] 2013

4217%2008

eqnzk ,ao fuf/k vadu fu;ekoyh

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]

dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxyq:] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ ,e ,l Mh@th&8 vf/klwpuk]

fueZy dqekj iky] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izcU/k ,oa ra=½

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1709.—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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :—

4730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of Indian

Date of

No.

Standard Established

Standard, if any,

Established

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/ISO 20022-2: 2007

—

31 March, 2013

Financial Services - Unviersal

Financial Industry Message

Scheme Part 2 Roles and

Responsibilities of the

Registration Bodies

IS 15413:2013/ISO 4217:2008

—

28 February, 2013

Codes for the representation of

currencies and funds

(First Revision)

Copy of above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and its Regional Offices At Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices

at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune

and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MSD/G-8 Notification]

NIRMAL KUMAR PAL, Scientist 'F' & Head (MSD)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1710.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd vuqlwph esa fn;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dks½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

la'kks/ku ykxw gksus

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkSj frfFk

dh frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 1586 (part 1)%2010 m"ek

la'ks/ku la[;k 1 twu

30 twu] 2013

lg lkefxz;ksa ds uewus ysus dh vkSj

2013

HkkSfrd ijh{k.k i)fr;ka Hkkx 1 mRrkifefr

'kadq lerqY; ¼ihlhbZ½ ;k xyu fcanq dk

fu/kkZj.k ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ

fnYyh] dksydkrk] paMhx<+ psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA

[lanHkZ ,eVhMh 15@Vh&66]

ihñ ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1710.—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 Amendment(s), Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule here to annexed have been established on the dae indicated against each :—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4731

SCHEDULE

Sl.

IS No. & Title of the amendment(s)

No. & year of the

Date from which

No.

Amendment (s)

the amendment shall

have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1528 (Part 1): 2010 Methods of sampling

Amendment No. 1

30 June, 2013

and physical tests for refractory materials

June 2013

Part 1 Determination of pyrometric cone

equivalent (PCE) or softening point

(third revision)

Copy of this Standard is 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, Kolcatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD 15/T-66]

P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' & Head (MTD)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1711.—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa] miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼[kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx½ ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k

gS] dks jkti= esa vf/klwfpr djrh gS%&

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

{ks=h; dk;kZy;] os;jgkmflax dkWEiysDl]

jkokaHkkVk] iksLV chjxkao jk;iqjA

[la- bZ&11011@1@2008&fgUnh]

iz'kkar f=osnh] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1711.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies

the following office of Food Corporation of India under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs,

Food & Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food & Public

Distribution), where of more than 80% of staff have acquired

the working knowledge of Hindi:

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional Office, Warehousing Complex,

Rawanbhata, Post Birgaon, Raipur.

[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]

PRASHANT TRIVEDI, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ 2013

dkñvkñ 1712.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

73@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@6@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@19@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2003)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workman, received by the Central Government

on 03/06/2013.

[No. L-20012/19/2003-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 73 of 2003

4732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur

Area III of M/S/ B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present :— Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding

Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers.

Sri D.K. Verma,

Advocate

For the workman

Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State

Jharkhand

Industry :— Coal.

Dated. 14/05/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/19/2003-IR-(C-I), dt. 26/07/2003,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

^^D;k eSllZ Hkkjr dksfdax dksy fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= }kjk

deZdkj Jh fd'kqu HkqbZ;ksa] ekbuj yksMj] dk;Zjr gSoh Oghdy

MªkbZoj] dwjhMhg dksfy;jh dks fnukad 22-3-2001 ls lsokfuo`Ùk

fd;k tkuk U;k; ,oa fof/kd n`f"V ls lgh ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn

ugha rks mDr deZdkj fdu ykHkksa dks ikus ds gdnkj gSa\**

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 19-08-2003. After notice, the Sponsoring Union files

their written statement on 27-08-2003. The short point to

be decided in the case is as to whether retirement of the

workman on 22-03-2001 is proper or premature.

3. The workman in his written statement has

submitted that, at the time of joining his job, he was 21

years, and as such he is to be superannuated much later

not on 23.03.2001.

4. On the other hand the management in his written

statement submitted that, the workman never raised

objection about his age before hand, except at the time of

his retirement. Moreover as per medical test, his age was

determined and that was noted in the Form "B" register

maintained by the Company.

5. The entire picture of the case will be clear from the

deposition i.e. cross-examination of the workman which

portion is extracted below:—

"I have no document to show regarding my date of

Birth. I was appointed in place of my mother. My

mother took VRS. I was appointed in the year 1978. I

gave my age as 21 years at the time of Medical

examination. I had not given any paper to the doctor

to show that my age was 21 years. I was not given

retirement notice. I have been retired as per record of

the management,"

6. This being the evidence of the workman in the

absence of any documentary evidence regarding age of

the workman, and as the dispute has been raised by the

Union/workman at the time of his retirement, his claim is

not accepted.

7. Considering the fact and circumstances, I hold

that the action of the management of M/s BCCL in retiring

Sri Kishun Bhuia, Miner Loader working as heavy vehicle

Driver of Kuridih w.e.f. 22.03.2001 is justified and fair, Hence

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the result, the reference is answered in negative.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1713.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iou gal

gSfydkIVlZ ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@2@34@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@26@2004&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼lh,eñ I½]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013

S.O. 1713.—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/

34 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

managment of M/s. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/07/2013.

[No. L-11012/26/2004-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K. B. KATARE, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/34 of 2005

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4733

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF M/S. PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD.

The General Manager

M/s. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.

Juhu Airport

S.V. Road

Vile Parle (W)

Mumbai-400056.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Shri Vivekanand S. Sonawane

C/o. Mahadeo G. Shinde

20/2, Mohd. Jamal Chawl

Nehru Nagar

Kurla (E)

Mumbai-400 024.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. Abhay Kulkarni,

Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. M.B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 30th April, 2013

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-11012/26/2004-IR(C-I) dated

15/12/2004 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:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd., Mumbai in terminating/

discontinuing the services of Shri Vivekanand S. Sonawane,

Jr. Assistant w.e.f. 21/3/1995 is just and legal? If not, to

what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference from Ministry both

the parties were served with notices. In response to the

notice the second party workman has filed his statement of

claim at Ex-6. According to him, he was appointed as a Jr.

Assistant in Tool Crib Section of Material Department of

the Pawan Hans Ltd. Mumbai from 26/4/1994 on monthly

salary of Rs. 2500/- upto 25/10/1994 on contract basis. The

said period was extended thrice by one month on each

occasion. The Sr. Manager, Mr. N.M. Upadhyay told the

second party that his services would be terminated after

25/11/1995. The workman pointed out to him that he had

completed more than 240 days continuous service and

entitled for permanency. However Mr. Upadhyay did not

listen to him. Therefore the workman filed complaint (ULP)

no. 94/95 in Industrial Court Mumbai. The Court passed

ex-parte interim order restraining the respondent from

terminating the services of the workman. The said order

was subsequently vacated. The workman worked

continuously from 24/6/1994 to 20/3/1995. He had worked

for about 329 days.

Thereafter they did not allow him to resume his

duties. His gate pass and identity card where forcibly taken

away by the Security Inspector as per the order of Mr. A.K.

Srivastava. Thereafter he used to report daily at the gate

for duty. However he was not allowed to enter in the

premises. His services were terminated w.e.f. 21/03/1995

without giving any notice and without assigning any

reason. Mr. Srivastava assured the workman to reinstate

him if he withdrew the complaint. Therefore workman had

withdrawn the complaint. However Mr. Srivastava did not

keep his words. Therefore workman filed another complaint.

The said complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction

with a liberty to approach appropriate forum. Thereafter

workman approached ALC (c) Mumbai. As conciliation

failed, ALC (C) made report to the Government. According

to him he was recruited as Junior Assistant which is a

permanent post. He worked for more than 240 days as a Jr.

Assistant. The management had again invited application

for the post of Jr. Assistant. Workman had applied for the

same. However his application was not considered. On the

other hand one Ms. Kalpana & Mr. Raju Kadam were

appointed in the Accounts Department and Material

Department. They are junior to him. The management has

not followed provisions of Section 25 F of I.D. Act. As

such his retrenchment is illegal. There were vacancies in

the post of Jr. Assistant due to death of Muthu Swamy and

retirement of Mr. Gawai. However they did not consider

him for the appointment. Management followed unfair

labour practice by terminating his services and by not

appointing him. His wages of 20 days were also not paid in

the month of March 1995. Therefore the workman prays

that his termination be declared illegal and invalid and he

be reinstated in the service with full back-wages and

continuity of service.

3. The first party management resisted the statement

of claim vide its written statement Ex-9. According to them,

the second party has filed identical claim in CGIT, New

Delhi bearing Ref. no. 223 of 1999. The second party cannot

be allowed to continue to proceed with both the references

simultaneously for the same incidence. Thus the claim is

not maintainable. They further contended that the second

party was appointed temporarily only for six months and

he was granted extension purely on temporary basis.

Therefore his appointment came to an end on expiry of the

period and extended period. His appointment came to an

end by efflux of time and not on account of retrenchment.

His appointment was not renewed therefore it cannot be

termed as retrenchment. After expiry of the time he was

given extension thrice for a short interval of one month on

each occasion. Therefore it cannot be called retrenchment.

4734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

His appointment was temporary for a short period and on

expiry of the period, it came to an end. They have denied

that they have followed any unfair labour practice. They

denied that Mrs. Srivastava had promised to re-appoint

him and therefore he has withdrawn the complaint. The

complaint is not maintainable. The second party has filed

the complaint to delay the matter indefinitely and to

misguide the court. The complaint is false and not tenable.

They denied that workman has worked continuously for

329 days without any break. They denied that workman

has worked more than 240 days continuously and entitled

for permanency. They denied that he was recruited against

permanent post. They denied that Mr. Ghoradkar and Ms.

Kalpana were junior to him. They denied all the allegations

that he was retrenched illegally. They denied that he is

entitled to be reinstated. Therefore they pray that the

reference be dismissed with cost.

4. The second party workman vide his rejoinder

Ex-11 denied that he had filed Ref. 223 of 1999 at CGIT, New

Delhi. He reiterated the contents in his statement of claim

and denied the contents in the written Statement.

5. This Tribunal recorded the evidence, heard both

the advocates and passed the award dt. 17/01/2012. The

said award was challenged before Hon'ble High Court in

Writ Petition no. 6195 of 2012. The Hon'ble High Court by

consent of both the parties set aside the award and

remanded the matter back to dispose of the reference on

the basis of material which is already on record.

Accordingly both the advocates were given opportunity

to argue the matter.

6. Following are the issues re-casted after remand of

the matter by Hon'ble High Court. I record my findings

thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sl. No. Issues

Findings

Whether the workman was appointed

Yes

against permanent vacancy after

following the procedure therefor?

Does the first party prove that the

No.

workman was appointed temporarily

for a specific period and his

services came to an end on expiry

of period of contract of his service?

Whether the workman is entitled to

Partly yes.

reinstatement with full back wages?

What order?

As per final

order.

REASONS

Issues nos. 1 to 3:-

7. In the case at hand the fact is not disputed that in

response to the advertisement, the workman has applied

for the post of Junior Assistant in the Tools Crib Section of

Materials Department. Fact is also not disputed that he

was interviewed and was selected for the said post. There

is pleading to that effect. So also the MW-1 has admitted

these facts in his cross-examination at Ex-17 that, the

workman had applied on 12/4/1994 for the post of

Jr. Assistant and he was called for interview by a telegram.

He has also admitted in his cross that the workman was

given appointment letter dt. 26/4/1994. The said

appointment was for six months. He has also admitted in

his corss that vide their letters dated 28/10/1994, 29/11/

1994 and 4/1/1995 the said appointment was extended three

times. In this respect the Ld. adv. for the first party

submitted that the appointment of the workman was

temporary and for a specific period of six months. Therefore

termination of service under the said terms before the expiry

of specific period or an expiry of period does not amount to

retrenchment. In support of his argument the Ld. adv. for

the first party resorted to Apex Court ruling in Escorts Ltd.

V/s. Presiding Officer and anr. (1997) 11 SCC 521. In that

case the workman was appointed for a specific period of

two months vide letter dated 9/1/1987 and his services

were terminated on 13/02/1987. In the circumstances Hon'ble

Court in that case observed that;

"...the service of workman terminated on 13/2/1987

as per the terms of the contract of employment

contained the appointment letter dt. 9/1/1987 which

enable the appellant to terminate the services of

workman at any stage without assigning any reason.

Since the service of workman were terminated as per

the terms of the contract of employment, it does not

amount to retrenchment u/s 2 (oo) of the Act and the

Labour Court was in error in holding that it

constituted retrenchment and was protected by

Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act."

8. The Id. Adv. for the first party also resorted to

another ruling in Uptron India Ltd. V/s Shammi Bhan &

Anr. 1998/CLR 1043 in respect of the fixed term contract

service the Hon'ble court observed that,

"...on expiry of its original period, is not renewed and

the services are terminated as a consequence of that

period prima, it would not amount to 'Retrenchment'.

Similarly if the services are terminated even before

the expiry of the period of contract, but not in

pursuance of stipulation contended in that contract

that the services would be so terminated, then in

that case also, the termination also would not amount

to 'retrenchment' ".

9. The Id. Advocate for the first party also resorted

to the Rajasthan High Court ruling in Sewa Ram V/s. The

Municipal Board and anr. 2005 II CLR 615 wherein the

Hon'ble Court observed that;

"When appointment is made for a limited period and

services of an employee are terminated on expiry of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4735

period of contract, then in such cases provision of

Section 25 F of the Act of 1947 are not attracted. In

these circumstances, the Ld. Labour Court has rightly

held that services of petitioner came to an end on

expiry of period of contract and such termination

does into fall within the definition of retrenchment

as defined in the Act of 1947."

10. In that case the workman there in was not

appointed by following the procedure prescribed for

recruitment. He had applied and was appointed for a

particular period. Therefore after expiry of the period the

Hon'ble Court held that, it does not amount to retrenchment.

In the case at hand, the worker herein was appointed to the

post of Jr. Assistant after following procedure prescribed

therefor. Furthermore at the relevant time the post was

permanent and vacant. The management ought to have

appointed him on probation. Instead of that they appointed

him for six months and thereafter his term was extended for

three more months. In the circumstances it is clear that he

was appointed after following the recruitment process as

required to fill up a permanent post. In this backdrop the

ratio laid down in the above rulings are not attracted to the

set of facts of the present case.

11. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to

Kerala High Court ruling in Narmada Building Materials

Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Devassy 1998 II CLR 26. wherein the Hon'ble

Court in para 11 of the judgement observed that:

"Once an appointment is for a fixed period, Section

25-F does not apply as if it is covered by Clause (bb)

of Section 2 (oo) of the Act."

However in the same judgement the Hon'ble Court

further observed that;

"When the appointment is for a fixed period, unless

there is finding that power under clause (bb) of

Section 2 (oo) was misused or vitiated by its malafied

exercise, it cannot be held that the termination is

illegal. In its absence the employer could terminate

that service in terms of the letter of appointment unless

it is a colourable exercise of power. It must be

established in each case that power was misused by

the management or the appointment for a fixed period

as a colourable exercise of power."

12. In the case at hand, the Ld. Adv. for the second

party submitted that, the management has misused the

power and the appointment for fixed period was colourable

exercise of power. According to him the workman was

appointed against a clear vacancy and by following the

procedure prescribed for the appointment of a regular

employee. In the circumstances it was a mere colourable

exercise of power to appoint the workman for a fixed period

of six months. He further pointed out that, as per the

Standing Orders of the First Party company there is no

provision of appointing contract worker. He pointed out

clause 3.3 to clause 3.7 prescribes the various types of

appointments of workmen. They are: (1) As per clause 3.3:-

Casual worker whose employment is of casual nature, (2)

3.4 Part time:- who works less than normal period of working

hours. (3) 3.5 Probationer:- appointed on probation of six

months to fill up a permanent vacancy. (4) 3.6 Temporary:-

appointed for a limited period temporarily as an additional

workman in connection with temporary increase in work of

permanent nature and workers appointed in a temporary

vacancy.

13. As per the standing orders no contractual service

is prescribed. The temporary appointment for a limited

period is prescribed only to clear temporary increase in

work of permanent nature and workers appointed in a

temporary vacancy. In the case at hand the workman was

neither appointed to clear increase in work nor appointed

in a temporary vacancy. On the other hand his appointment

was against a permanent vacancy and after following due

process prescribed for the appointment of a permanent

post. Therefore Ld. Adv. rightly submitted that the

management cannot give such a contractual appointment

for fix period which is not prescribed in Certified Standing

Orders. The copy of the Certified Standing Order is on

record with list Ex-14/17. It shows that management has

misused its power and the appointment for a fixed period is

a mere colourable exercise of power.

14. It is the case of the workman that he was

appointed against permanent post as there was vacancy.

The first party had denied that there was any vacancy of

permanent post of Jr. Assistant and Assistant in P & A and

F & A Department. In this respect both the parties have not

filed on record the copy of the advertisement published in

the newspaper. However from the copy of the application

submitted by the workman with list Ex-14/2, it is revealed

that, he has submitted the application to the Sr. Manager

of the first party in response to their advertisement dated

31/10/1994 in Time of India. In the said letter it is mentioned

in the beginning that, "Being given to understand that

there are few vacancies for the post of Jr. Assistant in your

esteemed organization, I take this opportunity to submit

my candidature for one of them." Though the advertisement

in Times of India is not on record, from this recital in the

application of the workman dt. 12/04/1994, it is revealed

that there were vacancies for the post of Jr. Assistant and

as per the advertisement in Times of India the workman

had applied for the same. He was called for interview, he

was selected and then appointed. In this backdrop I come

to the conclusion that, the appointment of the workman

herein was against clear vacancy and he was appointed

after following the recruitment procedure. Therefore the

first party ought to have appointed him on probation of six

months, as prescribed under clause 3.5 of the Standing

Order of the company. They have misused the power and

appointed the workman for a period of six months. The

said appointment is against the provisions of Standing

4736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Orders and it is colourable exercise of power. Therefore I

hold that it was infact not an appointment for a fixed

contractual period. As per clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders,

the appointment has to be treated as appointment on

probation for a period of six months and thereafter workman

continued to work for three more months. It shows he had

completed the probation period. Therefore I hold that the

ratios laid down in the above referred rulings are not

attracted to the set of facts of the present case as the

appointment herein was infact not for a fixed period. It was

shown to that effect illegally.

15. It is the case of the workman that he had worked

more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year. Fact is

not denied that workman has worked six months from the

date of his appointment and thereafter he was given three

months extension. It shows that the workman has worked

for 9 months continuously. By simple calculation it is clear

that the workman has worked continuously for 270 days in

a calendar year. It is a fact that the workman worked till

28/3/1995. It shows that he has worked more than 240 days.

Therefore the Id. adv. for the second party submitted that

the workman was entitled to get the benefit of permanency.

In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Bombay

High Court ruling in Allen Alexender Yesudas Maikel V/s.

Perfect Oil Seals and IRP & Ors. 1995 I CLR 942. In that

case the workman was employed on 20/04/1985 and

continued in service till 22/11/1985. He was re-employed

on 2/12/1985 for a period of six months and his services

were terminated on 31/5/1986. In the circumstances the

Hon'ble Court observed that;

The termination of petitioner's service on 31/5/1986

amounts to "Retrenchement" as defined in Section 2 (oo)

of Industrial Disputes Act as it did not fall within the

exception clause (bb), but failed within the main body of

the definition of the Section. Since it is not in dispute that,

the provision of Sec 25-F were not complied with, the

retrenchment was ab-initio, illegal and invalid. The

petitioner was therefore entitled to continue in service."

16. The Ld. Adv. also resorted to another Bombay

High Court ruling in Saudi Arabian Airlines V/s. Ashok

Margovind Panchal and anr. 2002 III CLR 743. In that

case the workman was earlier appointed a Security Guard

through contractor for about four years then he was directly

employed for two years at the end of which his service was

terminated. The Hon'ble Court held that, the post of

Security Guard was of permanent nature and on completion

of 240 days services the workman was entitled to be made

permanent. On the point Hon'ble Court observed that;

"So long as property and lives both are to be

protected, the work of security guard cannot be said

to be of temporary nature. So long as property and

lives are under the constant threat of insecurity. The

work of security guards has to be considered as of

perennial nature."

17. In that case the workman had completed more

than 240 days continuous service and the post of the

security guard was permanent. Therefore Hon'ble Court

held that there was no application of Sec. 2 (oo) (bb) of The

I.D. Act. In the case at hand as discussed above, the

applications were invited against three vacant posts of

Junior Assistant and the workman had applied for one of

the same. Therefore I hold that the appointment of the

workman was against clear vacancy. He was appointed

after following the procedure for recruitment and he had

completed more than 240 days continuous service. Thus

he is entitled to be made permanent.

18. The Ld. Adv. for the first party in this respect further

submitted that though the workman has worked more than

240 days continously in a calendar year, he cannot claim

permanency as his services came to an end after expiry of

his term of services. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv.

resorted to Apex Court ruling in Delhi Transport

Corporation V/s. Moolchand (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 106

wherein the Hon'ble Court held that;

"Continuance on ad-hoc basis for a long period did

not confer any right for regularization when initial

appointment itself was not made by following due

process of selection."

19. However in this respect I would like to point out

that, the workman herein was appointed against clear

vacancy and after following due recruitment process. There

was advertisement inviting applications for the post. In

response thereto the workman had applied. He was called

for interview. The interview committee selected him.

Thereafter he was appointed to the post of Jr. Assistant.

Therefore, it cannot be said that he was appointed without

following the due process of recruitment. Thus ratio laid

down in this ruling is also not attracted to the set of facts

of the present case.

20. In the light of above discussion it is clear that the

workman was appointed as Jr. Assistant after following the

recruitment process prescribed there for. He was appointed

against clear vacancy of a permanent post. He has worked

more than 240 days. Therefore he is entitled to be confirmed

in the service. Instead of that the management has

terminated his services without following the retrenchment

procedure and without paying the retrenchment

compensation.

21. In this respect, the Ld. Adv. for the first party

management has alternatively submitted that instead of

passing the order of reinstatement, compensation equal to

retrenchment compensation can be paid to the workman.

In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party pointed

out that in the aforesaid ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High

Court in Alenxander Yesu Mickel & Saudi Arabia Airlines

(both referred supra), the Hon'ble High Court found that

the termination in such cases were illegal and in first case

Hon'ble Court directed the first party to reinstate the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4737

workman with back wages from the date of termination. In

the second case, the company was directed to make the

workman permanent from the date on which he completed

240 days of service and also directed to pay him all the

consequential benefits of permanency. In the light of above

two Bombay High Court rulings I am convinced that

retrenchment compensation would not serve the purpose

and the workman here in is entitled to be reinstated as a

permanent employee of the first party.

22. In respect of back wages theLd. Adv. for the first

party submitted that the workman is not expected to remain

ideal. He must have been gainfully employed and must be

earning for maintenance of himself and his family. He further

pointed out that, that 'no work no wages' is the settled

principle of law. Therefore he submitted that workman is

not entitled to any back wages. As against this the Ld.

Adv. for the second party submitted that the workman is a

very poor person. Due to illegal termination he and his

family suffered a lot. He further submitted that the workman

is not gainfully employed. He is fighting with the

management since the year 2001 and suffered a lot.

Therefore he submitted that full back-wages should be

awarded to the poor workman. After giving conscious

thought to the arguments of both the parties, it is clear that

awarding full back wages without any work would

unnecessarily put financial burden on the first party. At

the same time I also consider the fact that the workman is a

very poor person and since termination he must have

suffered a lot. It is also pertinent to note that he must have

earned some minimum amount to maintain his family. In

this backdrop to meet the ends of justice, I think 25% back

wages would serve the purpose. In short I think it proper

to direct the reinstatement with 25% back wages. Thus I

decide the issues nos. 1 in the affirmative, issue no. 2 in the

negative and issues nos. 3 & 4 as per the final order.

Accordingly, I partly allow the reference and proceed to

pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference is partly allowed with no order

as to cost.

(ii)

The first party is directed to reinstate the

workman forthwith with 25% back-wages and

all other benefits with continuity in service.

Date: 30-04-2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1714.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fVLdks ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@06@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@17@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013

S.O. 1714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. TISCO and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

03/06/2013.

[No. L-20012/17/2006-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 62 of 2006

Employers in relation to the management of Tisco Ltd.

Jamadoba

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT:—

SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers:—

Sri. D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. :—

Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State:—Jharkhand.

Industry:—Coal.

Dated. 15/05/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/17/2006 IR-(CM-I), dt. 01/06/2006,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Digwadih

colliery of M/s Tisco in dismissing Sh. Bharat Singh,

Belt Operator from the Services of the company vide

letter dated 04.07.2005 is fair and justified? If not, to

what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 03.07.2006, both parties are noticed. The Union/workman

files their written statement on 10.07.2006 and thereafter

rejoinder and document. Since it is a case of dismissal,

Preliminary enquiry was conducted, this Tribunal held the

disciplinary equiry conducted by the mangement before,

dismissal of the workman was not fair and proper vide the

4738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

tribunal's order dt. 3.5.2010. But the management did not

challenge the said order and the said order became final.

3. The management's case is the workman in the

present refrerence, attended in duty late, when he was asked

by his authority to clean the belt, he reacted saying that

was not his duty and there was altercation. The workman

man handled his authority and the matter was reported to

the in charge, and charge sheet was issued. But the case of

the workman is that, inside the mine, his authority assaulted

him on false pretext and fabricated a case against him to

adjust his own man in his place. Hence from the evidence

of both sides, there was assault either to the workman or to

his authority vice versa.

4. In the present case all MWs stated regarding the

erractic attitude of the workman. But the workman alleged

that he was assaulted by rest three.

5. It has been stated by the MW-1 that, the duty of

the workman was to clean the belt to which the workman

dispute. The MW-1 has stated that he would file document

to that effect. But no document to that effect has been

filed. There is documentary evidence to show that, on the

relevant date the workman went to duty late.

6. MW-2 has also stated that, it is not within his

knowledge that whether there is a post of belt cleaner or

not. He further says that, there was no other witness to

corroborate his evidence. Off course MW-2 alleged

regarding misbehavior and assault to him.

7. MW-3 has stated that, thereis a designation of a

belt cleaner. If there is a belt cleaner post, he is to clean the

belt not the workman. Therefore it can not be said that,

there was dereliction of duty by the workman.

8. From the evidence of the parties, it is clear that

there was altercation. Which is highly objectionable and

undesirable. But on the said ground removal of the

workman from service is harsh, specially when the

departmental enquiry conducted by the management held

unfair and improper, and the said order became final.

9. Therefore the opinion of the Tribunal is to reinstate

the workman in duty within two months from the date of

publication of the award in the Gazette. The workman is

also cautioned to remain within his limit. In this case, there

will be continuity of service is awarded.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that the action of the management of digwadih colliery of

M/S Tisco in dismissing Sh. Bharat Singh, Belt operator

from the service of the company vide letter dated 04.07.2005

is not fair and justified. Hence the workman is reinstate in

service with continuity of service but without any back

wages.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1715.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@105@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013

S.O. 1715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 11/06/2013.

[No. L-20012/105/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 28 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of Nirsa Colliery

M/S ECL

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT:—SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers.:—Sri. D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. :— Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State:—Jharkhand.

Industry:—Coal.

Dated. 28/05/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/105/2009-IR-(CM-I), dt. 12/03/2010,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4739

SCHEDULE

"(i) Whether the action of the management of Nirsa

Colliery of M/s ECL in not giving proper grade and

pay of Engineer (E&M) to Shri A.K. Ganguly, Asstt.

Forman is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25.03.2010. After notice both parties appeared, the Union/

workman files their written statement on 17.06.2010 and

after that the management files written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 14.10.2011, and respective documents.

3. The claim of the workman is, he is to be given

proper grade in the electric engineering department of the

management. It is his case that he was appointed as

electrical supervisor on 16/17.11.1999. But he demanded to

be placed as Supervisor Grade "A" from November 1999.

He further submitted that taking his experience the

management appointed him as electrical Engineer through

varous letters between may 2003 to September 2003. It is

his claim that, he be regularised as Engineer Grade "A"

from 1999 and consequently, Electrical Manager Since 2004.

4. As per the order of the management the workman

has been posted as Electrical Supervisor w.e.f. 16.11.99.

Subsequently the workman was allowed to work in the

leave vacancy of one Sri Gorai w.e.f. 9.9.2003 and

subsequently 25.5.2004. Therefore, he claim to be

regularised in the said post.

5. It has been admitted by the management that the

workman has worked in such capacity. It is submitted that

as per the cadre scheme, unless a Forman complete three

years as Forman in T&S Grade-B he can not be promoted

to E&S Grade A.

6. For the purpose of promotion a regular DPC is to

be done and a selected candidate is to be promoted to the

higher post. Merely working in a post for a long period, will

not give him the place in a higher grade or post.

7. The management also files a decision to that effect,

reported in Supreme Court cases (L&S) 264, working in

promotional post or an officiating post can not give any

right, except there is a promotional order and acceptance

of the post.

8. It is further pertinent to mention that the workman

did not accept the promotional post for clarity, it is felt

proper to extract the entire cross examination of the

workman. (WW-1)

"I am not in the post of Electrical supervisor. My

designation is Asstt. Forman. I am not doing the job

of Electrical supervisor. I have worked as Electrical

supervisor from 1999 to 2004. I have get no order to

work from supervisor to workman. I get Rs. 35000 per

month gross. I do not remember if DPC was held or

not in my case. I was given Electrical supervisor by

DPC but it did not accept it. I have get no degree of

Electrical Engineer, but I got degree of Electrical

supervisor."

9. When the workman refused to joint in the

promotional post can not claim higher post merely he served

in the said post for a longer period. Therefore the claim of

the workman is not acceptable.

10. Considering the fact and circumstance of this

case, I held that the action of the management of Nirsa

Colliery of M/s. ECL in not giving proper grade and pay of

Engineer (E&M) to Shri A.K. Ganguly, Asstt. Forman is

justified and legal. Hence the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1716.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@1998½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzah; ljdkj dks 13@05@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@647@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013

S.O. 1716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/1998)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/05/2013.

[No. L-20012/647/1997-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,

1947

Ref. No. 55 of 1998

Employer in relation to the management of Kargali Coal

washery, M/s. CCL

AND

4740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Their workmen

PRESENT: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

: Sri B.B. Pandey, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Indusry: Coal

Dated: 25-04-2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/647/97-IR (C-I), dated 13/08/

1998, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the termination from the services of CCL

of Sri Bihari Mohato, Operator Gr.-I by the

management of Kargali Coal Washery, C.C. Ltd., P.O.-

Bermo, Distt.-Bokaro is legal & justified? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 01.09.1998. Both parties are noticed. The Union/

Workman files their written statement on 17.08.1999 as well

as the management files their written statement on 20.12.99.

Thereafter rejoinder filed by the workman on 30.11.2000,

Document received from the respective parties.

3. The Enquiry held by the enquiry officer found not

just and proper by this Tribunal on 09.05.2012. And the

order of preliminary point regarding fairness of domestic

enquiry has not been challenged by the management and

the said order became final.

4. The short point involved in this case is due to

continuous absence of the workman was dismissed from

service.

5. On scrutiny it is noticed, that the workman has

filed a Mercy petition before the A.G.M., Kargali washery

i.e. marked as Ext M-3 along with medical certificate i.e.

marked as Ext W-1, in which management officers allow

him, this proves that the management agree with his illness.

6. The learned counsel for the workman submitted

that continuous absence of workman always not

international but that may be due to hazardous working

condition.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that the termination from the service of C.C.L. of Sri Bihari

Mahto, Operator Gr.-I is not justified. The workman crossed

his retirement age, therefore in the opinion of the Court,

the workman be reinstate in the service with continuity of

Service of the workman be maintained, he be given 10% of

his back wages. The reference answered accordingly.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1717.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@1999½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzah; ljdkj dks 29@04@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@360@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013

S.O. 1717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

29/04/2013.

[No. L-20012/360/1998-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL(NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947

Ref. No. 98 of 1999

Employer in relation to the management of Kedia OCP of

M/S C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri R.N. Ganguli, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Indusry : Coal

Dated: 12/04/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/360/1998-(C-I), dt. 04/06/1999,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4741

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kedla

Open Cast Project, M/s. Central Coalfield Ltd.

P.O.-Kedla, Distt.-Hazaribagh, in terminating of

service of Sh. Anwar Ahmad, Ex-overman w.e.f.

06.01.94 is legal & justified? If not, what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

15.06.1999. Both parties are noticed. The workman files their

written statement on 09.07.1999 and thereafter rejoinder. The

short point to be decided in the case is whether continuous

absent of the workman till his dismissal is proper.

3. In this case, the preliminary enquiry held unfair

and improper. The said order was not challenged by the

management. Though in the show cause of the

management, it has been stated that there was also previous

long absence of the workman. But that has not been proved

by the management. Plea of illness of the workman, though

not proved for the single absence, dismissal of the workman

is a major penalty.

4. Moreover the dependent of the workman has filed

the photocopy of the death certificate of the concerned

workman, where the reason of death was due to mental

illness. Illness is a good ground of absence. Hence the

dismissal of the workman is improper. It is on record, that

the workman died in the meantime.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that the action of the management of Kedla Open Cast

Project of M/s. CCL in terminating the service of

Sri Anwar Ahmad, Ex-overman w.e.f. 06.01.1994 is not

justified. Hence his service benefits as if he is in service be

given to his dependent. But the workman is not entitled to

get any back wages.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1718.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

248@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzah; ljdkj dks 10@07@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@369@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 248/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/07/2013.

[No. L-20012/369/2001-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947

Ref. No. 248 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of South Tisra

Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri R. Ranjan, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Indusry: Coal.

Dated: 27/06/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/369/2001-IR-(C-I), dated

23/11/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether denial to pay sick wages to Sri Umapado

Banerjee w.e.f. 28.1.94 to 11.1.95 by the management

of South Tisra Colliery BCCL is justified? If not, to

what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 06.12.2001. After notice both parties appeared, the

Sponsoring Union/workman files their respective written

statement on 28.08.2003, rejoinder and filed their documents.

The workman has been examined as WW-1.

3. In the Case the short point involed in the case is

whether the workman who was on continuous sick leave,

is entitled to the wages as per the half pay leave etc. It is

submitted by the management, in paragraph 5 of its written

statement that as per the NCWA agreement and as per

leave rules, the workman is entitled to half pay leave and

connected benefits will not be denied to the workman.

4742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

4. This being the situation and considering the facts

and circumstances of this case, the workman Sri Umapado

Banerjee is entitled half pay leave w.e.f. 28.1.94 to 11.1.95

as per NCWA agreement and leave rules.

The reference answered accordingly.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1719.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/

kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 228@2001½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzah; ljdkj dks 10@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@279@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 228/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/07/2013.

[No. L-20012/279/1999-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 228 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Block II, Area

of M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

None

State: Jharkhand

Indusry: Coal

Dated: 28/06/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/279/1999-IR (CM-I), dated

10/10/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of National Coal Workers

Congress from the management of Block II area of

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited that Shri Bhim

Mahato, Pump Operator should be regularised as Store

issue Clerk w.e.f. 25.10.97 is proper and justified? If so,

to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 06.11.2001. After notice both parties are appeared, the

Union/workman files their written statement on 29.01.2003.

Thereafter the management filed their written statement-

cum-rejoinder on 28.03.2003, witnesses on behalf on the

workman and the management examined. The short point

involved in this case, as to whether the workman who was

working as pump operator, under the management can be

regularised as clerk in the said organization.

3. For deciding the aforesaid dispute the evidence of

the workman i.e. his cross examination is extracted below:—

"I was appointed on 31.01.1973 as pump operator.

Presently I am in Cat-VI as pump operator. I was non-

matric on 20.01.88. My reference was rejected by the

Ministry. The matter was referred as per order of the

Hon'ble High Court. There is separate cadre scheme

for pump operator and clerical cadre. I cannot say if

pump driver was regularised in clerical grade. I was

transferred from Benedih Colliery to Block-II O.C.P.

as pump operator. It is not a fact that I have not

worked as store issue clerk. It is not a fact that my

demand is baseless.”

4. After perusal of the document the workman has

passed praveshika examination from Hindi Bidyapith, in

1996. He has not having matriculation certificate prior to

1996 as per Ext. M-4. It is cleared that the workman has not

requisite qualification on 25.10.87.

5. Moreover it is submitted by the management, from

the cadre of pump operator, one cannot be regularised in

the post of clerk.

6. Considering the fact and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the demand of National coal workers

congress from the management of Block II Area of M/s.

BCCL that Shri Bhim Mahato, Pump Operator should be

regularised as store issue clerk w.e.f. 25.10.87 is not proper

and justified. Hence the workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference answered against the workman.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4743

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1720.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuokn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@90@2009&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

10/07/2013.

[No. L-20012/90/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

LOK-ADALAT

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 60 of 2009

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Colliery

of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman :

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated 19/6/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/90/2009-IR (CM-I),

dt. 27/10.2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the action of the management of Sijua

Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. In dismissing

Shri Dharmendra Paswan, Miner from the services of

the company w.e.f. 21.04.2008 justified and legal?

(ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed.

Though they appeared for certain dates, subsequently did

not take any interest in the case and continuously remained

absent. It is presumed that there is not dispute between

the parties. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1721.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuokn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

116@1991½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@07@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@40@1991&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/

1991) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10/07/2013.

[No. L-20012/40/1991-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

LOK-ADALAT

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 116 of 1991

Employers in relation to the management of Sudamdih Shaft

Mine of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers:

Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

4744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

For the workman :

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 18/6/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/40/91-IR (CM-I), dt. 25/07/91,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the action of the management of

Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sudamdih,

Distt-Dhanbad is dismissing Shri Deoraj from the

services of the company is justified? If not for what

releif is workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed.

Though they appeared for certain dates, subsequently did

not take any interest in the case and continuously remained

absent. It is presumed that there is not dispute between

the parties. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1722.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuokn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

83@1991½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@07@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@144@1989&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/1991)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

10/07/2013.

[No. L-20012/144/1989-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT.

Ref. No. 83 of 1991

Employer in relation to the management of Kenduadih

Colliery P.B. Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: None

State : Jharkhand

: Industry: Coal

Dated 28/6/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/144/89-IR (CM-I), dt.

27/08/1991, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Mazdoor

Sabha, that Sri Harak Dusadh and 15 others shows

in the Annexure, who were dismissed from service in

the year 1969 by their erstwhile employers, the

Raneegunga Coal Association Ltd., be taken back in

service by the management of Kenduadih Colliery of

M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief are these

persons entitled?"

ANNEXURE

1. Shri Harak Dusadh—UG Trammer

2. Sri Chamari Singh—Line Mazdoor

3. Sri Sitaram Dusadh—Fan Operator

4. Parameshwar Dusadh—On Setter

5. Sri Ram Dewar Chamar—Miner

6. Sri Nirmal Sah—Box man

7. Sri Sarju Singh—Ug Haulage Khalasi

8. Sri Ram Khumbar—Miner

9. Sri Bigan Mahato—Miner

10. Sri Deo Chamar—Miner

11. Sri Dawarath Kahar—Miner

12. Sri Faudar Sah—Tyndel

13. Sri Dudhnath Kahar—Miner

14. Sri Lilu Rabidas—Miner

15. Sri Khiru Sah UG—Trammer

16. Sri Prasadi Tanti—Engine Khalasi

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4745

2. After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed,

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is

presumed that the disputes between parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence no Dispute Award is

passed.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1723.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; -II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

1066@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@07@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@96@2004&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O. 1723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID No.

1066/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank, and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12/07/2013.

[No. L-12012/96/2004-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1066/2005

Registered on 20/9/2005

Sh. Dhan Bahadur Thapa S/o Late Sh. Man Bahadur,

C/o Sh. Khema Nand, 2597, Sector 27C, Chandigarh.

....Petitioner

VERSUS

The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Sh. M.P.S. Mann Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 28.6.2013

Central Governemnt vide Notification No. L-20012/

96/2004-IR (B-II), dtd. 03/09/2004, by exercising its powers

under section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section

(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act' referred the following Industrial disputes

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

and Sind Bank in terminating the services of

Sh. Dhan Bahadur Thapa S/o Sh. Man Bahadur, Ex-

Peon (Daily-Wage Basis) w.e.f. August, 2001 without

any notice and without any payment of retrenchement

compensation in violation of statutory provisions of

Section 25F, G and H of the ID Act, 1947 is just and

legal? If not, what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to and from which date?"

As per claim statement the workman had been

employed as peon on daily wage basis in Punjab and

Sind Bank Sector 22B, Chandigarh w.e.f. 8.7.1997. He

worked in the said branch up to 30.8.1998. Thereafter he

was transferred to extension counter Harkrishan Public

School, Sector 40C, Chandigarh w.e.f. 24.7.1998 where he

worked up to 24.11.1998 and thereafter he was transferred

to Sector 26, Chandigarh branch w.e.f. 25.11.1998. He was

being paid through voucher and up to 11.2.1999 the

vouchers were made in his name but thereafter the Branch

Manager stopped paying the workman through vouchers

in his name and instead he was paid in different fictitious

names mentioned in the vouchers under the threat of

termination of his service. He worked on the post of peon

without any break from 18.7.1997 till August 2001 when his

services were abruptly terminated by the Branch Manager

by a verbal order. After the termination of his service one

person named Singara Singh was engaged as peon.

According to the workman he had completed more than

240 days of service without any break in the immediately

preceding year of his termination. Yet his services were

terminated without any notice or notice pay and without

paying any retrenchment compensation. The workman has

alleged the violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act

also.

The claim was contested by the respondent. It was

stated that engagement of the workan was not in

accordance with the procedure of making regular

appointments and nor by a competent authority and as

such he is not entitled to the protection under Section 25F

of the Act. He has no right to continue in the services. He

had been engaged as casual labour to meet the exigencies

of service. It was denied that he had been transferred from

one branch to another. According to management after

4746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

relieving from one branch the claimant approached the

manager of another branch where he was engaged afresh

and there was no question of his transfer from one branch

to the other. Service rendered in different branches cannot

be clubbed together to determine continuous length of

service. It was denied that wages were paid to him in

different fictitious name and he worked in continuity.

According to the management the provisions of the Act

are not attracted in the case.

A rejoinder was filed by the workman to say that his

employment was within the knowledge of Zonal Office,

Chandigarh and his employment was with the consent and

connivance of the Zonal Office. Therefore the plea that the

appointment of the workman was not through proper

procedure is mischievous and misleading. As he has put in

more than 240 days continuous service in the immediate

preceding year of his termination the provisions of Section

25F of the Act are clearly attracted. He has put in more than

four years' continuous service. The management cannot take

advantage of its own wrong. It is for the management to

apply proper procedure for making appointments. The plea

of transfer from one branch to another was reiterated but it

was made clear that the transfers were on verbal orders.

In support of its case workman examined himself while

on behalf of management R.S. Paul, Senior Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank Sector 26 was examined.

The workman has also filed register of general

charges and vouchers in support of his case and the same

has been verified by the management.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the evidence on record. As it is clear from the

evidence on record and is also admitted to the management,

the workman was in the employment of the bank. It is also

not disputed that his appointment was not in accordance

with the rules. But I do not agree with the argument of the

learned counsel for management that for this reason he is

not entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act. A

workman irrespective of the fact whether he has been

appointed lawfully or unlawfully is entitled to the protection

of Section 25F of the Act; if he has completed 240 days

continuous service in 12 calendar months preceding the

date of his termination.

In this case it is important to see whether the workman

has completed 240 days service in a year preceding the

date of his termination. It is also to be seen whether his

services were terminated in August 2001; because as per

claim statement he was being paid through vouchers and

vouchers were being made in his name up to 11.2.1999. He

alleges that thereafter he was made to sign on the vouchers

prepared in fictitious names. It has been denied by the

management. I am of the view that the plea of the workman

in this regard cannot be accepted. If he signed the vouchers

in fictitious names, he indulged himself in wrongful acts

and he cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. His

engagement with the bank can be accepted up to 11.2.1999

only and the termination of his services w.e.f. August 2001

cannot be accepted.

Now he has taken the plea that he has been

transferred from one branch to another but the management

has denied. According to management he was a casual

worker engaged to meet the exigencies and after relieved

from one branch he was engaged afresh in the other branch

on his request. The argument of the learned counsel for

management is that his services in different branches cannot

be clubbed together. Learned counsel for workman though

has argued in favour of the workman but he failed to prove

the transfer of the workman from one branch to another. As

the workman was not a regular appointee hence his plea to

transfer from one branch to another does not appear

probable also. I agree with the learned counsel for the

management that he had been engaged afresh in different

branch after being relieved from one branch.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban

Development Authority Vs. Om Pal 2007 II LLJ 1030 held

that once two establishments are held to be separate and

distinct having different cadre strength of the workman, if

any, we are of the opinion that the period during which the

workman was working in one establishment will not inure

to his benefit when he was recruited separately in other

establishment, particularly when he was not transferred

from one sub-division to the other. In Union of India Vs.

Jummasha Diwan 2006 (III) FLR 895 the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that when casual employee is employed in

different establishments, may be under the same employer,

having different administrative set up, the concept of

continuous service cannot apply. His recruitment in the

said establishment constitute a fresh employment every

time.

From the claim statement it is clear that lastly w.e.f.

25.11.1998 to 11.2.1999 the workman was serving in Sector

26 branch of the bank. His service was not of more than 3

months even in the branch. Obviously he did not complete

240 days service in a year before his termination on

11.2.1999. Obviously he is not entitled to the protection of

Section 25F of the Act.

The learned counsel for workman relying on the

judgement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in

CWP No. 17931 of 2012 decided on 2.11.2012 and CWP No.

18154 of 2007 decided on 26.5.2010 has submitted that the

workmen will not cliam back wages if he is reinstated. But

since in this case the workman is not entitled to protection

of Section 25F of the Act itself hence there is no question

of his reinstatement.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion I am of the

view that neither the services of the workman were

terminated w.e.f. August 2001 as alleged by him nor he was

entitled to protection of Section 25F of the Act.

There is no evidence of any appointment subsequent

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4747

to the termination of the workman or of retaining any person

junior to workman at the time of his termination hence the

violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act is also not

there.

On the basis of the above going discussion it is

therefore held that in terminating the service of the workman

the provisions of Section 25F and 25G and 25H of the Act

were not violated and his termination is just and legal. He

is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered

against him. Let hard and soft copies of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1724.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@92@01½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26@04@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@238@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O. 1724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award No. (CGIT/LC/R/

92/01) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Disputebetween the employers in relation to

the management of Central Bank of India and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

26.04.2013.

[No. L-12012/238/99-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKALNI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2001

SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

Shri Santosh Rajpur,

S/o Shri Bhaiyalal Rajpur,

Acharya Vinoba Bhave Ward,

House No. 2274,

Baldikori ki dafai Tiraha,

Behind Sharda Bhawan East,

Ghamapur, Jabalpur.

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, 601,

Napier Town, Jabalpur.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of February, 2013

1. Present reference is received by this officer as per

letter dated 23.3.2001 from Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi. As per vide Notification No. L-12012/

238/99-IR(B-II) the schedule, the reference is directed for

adjudication of termination of the workman Shri Santosh

Rajput. After notice, workman submitted his statement of

claim on 12.3.2002 stating the facts challenging legality of

his termination. Workman prayed for reinstatement. The

management filed reply/Written statement on 5-12-2004.

The reference is pending for evidence. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence on 16-11-2008. He has not been

cross-examined. The case was fixed for evidence. Workman

submitted application for taking case on today's board.

The workman has filed copy of appointment order dated

29-1-2013. As per conditions, the workman was directed to

attend the Bank on 11-2-2013. In above matter, workman

submits that he desires to withdraw the proceedings. He

would not claim back wages. That his Advocate is not

attending the proceedings since 5-6 years as the workman

could not pay his fees. In support of his identity, the

workman shows copy of letter addressed to Manager of

Bank dated 23-11-2012 by which he has undertaken to

withdraw the proceedings. The zerox copy is kept for

record. Considering above submissions, it is clear that as

the workman has been appointed by the Bank, he is not

desiring to prosecute the proceedings. Therefore, I pass

the following order:—

"Award is disposed off for non-prosecution."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1725.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@126@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26@04@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@201@98&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O. 1725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

4748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Government hereby publishes the Award No. (CGIT/LC/R/

126/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bank of India and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 26.04.2013

[No. L-12012/201/98-IR-(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/126/99

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Smt. Anita Dagar,

w/o Ashok Dagar,

Ward No. 23, Kurele Niwas,

Itarsi, Hoshangabad (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Officer, M.P. Zone,

Bank of India Bhawan,

Jail Raod, Arera Hills,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of April 2013

1. As per letter dated 23-3-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

201/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Zonal

Manager Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Smt. Anita Dagar w.e.f. 4-6-98 is justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After service of notice, workman submitted

statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/2. The case as per

Statement of Claim is that since 1988 she was continuously

worked as sweeper in Bank of India Itarsi Branch. She was

cleaning latrine, bathroom, sweeping etc. She was paid Rs.

225 per month for above work. She was also paid bonus.

Her srvices were discontinued by management from

4-6-97. Secondly she was suffering hardship in life. She

further submits that she was paid only Rs. 225 per month.

Therefore she was working temporarily in Municipal

Corproation, Itarsi for managing expenses of her family.

That she was doing cleaning and sweeping work

continuously for 15 years. Instead of regularizing her

services, IInd party acted discriminately and regularized

Shri Goswami as sweeper. Her services were illegally

discontinued from 4-6-97. She also submits that her father-

in-law was doing cleaning work in the Bank since the branch

was opened. Inspite of appointment of Goswami, cleaning

work was done by him. That she had completed 240 days

continuous service and thereby acquire status of regular

employee. That she possess eligibility for appointment as

sweeper. Ist party workman prays for her appointment as

sweeper.

3. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 8/

1 to 8/2. Preliminary issue is raised that Ist party is not

workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. That Ist party

workman is working with Municipal Corporation, Itarsi

1988 for 7 1/2 years per day. Ist Party workman is paid

Rs. 1468/- per month by Municipal Corporaiton, Itarsi. She

was sanctioned loan of Rs. 15,000 for doing business of

readymade garments. IInd party submits that workman was

never appointed by Bank as regular sweeper. The Branch

had engaged her service as casual labor on day to day

basis for cleaning urinals and W.C. toilets. For this job

requires approximate 10 minutes time. Workman was not

engaged on regular service. The bonus was paid on basis

of number of working days. That the contention of

applicant workman are misconceived, she has not

completed 240 days continuous service. Her appointment

was as per exigency on reimbursement basis. The applicant

workman has no claim for employment in Bank on priority

whenever recruitment takes place. IInd party prayed for

rejection of relief prayed by workman.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each for the reasons as

below:—

(i)

Whether the action of management of Zonal

Manager Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Smt. Anita Dagar w.e.f. 4-6-98

is justified?

In Affirmative.

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Workman is not entitled to reliefs prayed by

him.

REASONS

5. The reference relates to whether termination of Ist

party workman is legal and proper. Ist party workman claims

that she was continuously working as sweeper in Bank.

She had completed 240 days service. However her

statement of claim is silent with respect to violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act. In her statement of claim, Ist party

workman had pleaded that as she was paid Rs. 225/- per

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4749

month, she has also temporarily worked in Municipal

Corporation, Itarsi. IInd party has also pleaded that the Ist

party was working as sweeper in Municipal Corporation

and she was paid Rs. 1468/- per month. IInd party has

raised objection that Ist party is not workman. However

the pleadings of IInd party is silent about Ist party workman

was doing any managerial or supervisory work to exclude

her claim from Section 2(s) of I.D.Act. Therefore I do not

find substance in said contention of IInd party.

6. Turning to the evidence, Ist party workman filed

affidavit of evidence at page 16. She has stated that she

has worked with IInd party from 1988 to June 1997 as

sweeper. She was paid wages in cash and bonus. She was

doing work of sweeper, cleaning floor, toilet and other

works. She has also stated that because of lesser wages

paid to her, she was working in Municipal Corproation,

Itarsi for support of her family. In her cross-examination,

she has stated that no written appointment order was given

to her. Her name was not suponsored from Employment

Exchange. However she says that interview was held. She

claims ignorance about attendance register maintained in

the Bank, whether her name is included in said register.

That she was working on daily wages, wages were paid in

cash. She denied that she was working on daily wages at

Municipal Corporation, Itarsi. In next question, she admits

that the portion of his statement of claim and affidavit about

working on daily wages at Municipal Corproation, Itarsi is

wrong. Her evidence is silent about violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act. The evidence of management's witness

Shri P.B. Wani filed at Page 19/1 to 19/2 covers contentions

of IInd party in the Written Statement that Ist party

workman had not completed 240 days continuous service

preceding her discontinuance. In his cross-examination,

the witness of the management says that the bonus sheets

documents M-2 and M-4 are produced. Merely from

payment of bonus, it is difficult to hold that workman has

completed 240 days continuous service. The written notes

of arguments are submitted on behalf of workman, it is

contended that bonus was paid for 365 days. Workman

has not pleaded in her statement of claim or affidavit of

evidence she had completed 240 days continuous service

in IInd party Bank. When she has stated in her statement

of claim and affidavit of evidence that she was also working

temporarily in Municipal Corporation, Itarsi, it is obligatory

on the part of workman to give particulars of working days

in IInd party Bank. In absence of such evidence, it is difficult

to hold that workman completed 240 days continuous

service. The evidence on record clearly shows that

procedure for recruitment was not followed, any

advertisement was not given. Name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. Ist party doesnot get right

for appointment as regular employee in the Bank. Counsel

for IInd party has submitted citation.

"In the case of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma versus

Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI and another

reported in 2007-I-LLJ-302. Their Lordship of

Delhi High Court dealing with casual labour—persons

working as driver on daily rated/casual basis. His

disengagement did not entitle him to reinstatement

or regualrization."

"In AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1166. Their Lordship of

the Apex Court considering respondent appointed

as contract sweeper and attender in State Transport

Corproation continued as such for many years. It is

held that their services cannot be regularized as their

appointments were dehors rules and constitutional

scheme of public employment—circular issued by

corporation directing appointment of contractual

against sanctioned vacancies cannot override Article

16."

"Ratio held in 2002(3) SC.pg-25 Ratio relates of

entitlement of workman under Section 25-F of

I.D.Act."

In present case, there is no evidence about

completion of 240 days service by workman or violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. No such relief is claimed. Ist party

workman is not entitled to any relief. The discontinuation

of services of Ist party workman is legal as she has not

completed 240 days. Workman is not covered under Section

25(b) of I.D.Act. She is not entitled to protection under

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, Issue No.1 is

answered in Affirmative.

7. In the result award is passed as under:—

(1)

Action of IInd party management in

terminating services of workman from 4-6-98 is

just and legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by Ist party workman is rejected."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1726.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,yñlhñ@vkjñ@55@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@02@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@143@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2013

S.O. 1726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award No. (CGIT/LC/R/

4750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

55/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of CENTRAL BANK OF INIDA and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 26.02.2013.

[No. L-12011/143/2008-IR-(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/09

Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan, Presiding Officer

General Secretary,

Pratarit Karmachari Kalyan Manch,

Central Office, F-1, Karmabhumi,

Tripti Vihar,

Indore Road, Ujjain

....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional office, Burhar Road,

Ahuzza Market complex,

Shahdol

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of February 2013

1. Under letter dated 27-3-2009 from Government of

india, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, present dispute is

referred. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of the

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Shahdol

(MP) through its branch in terminating the services

of Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Ex. Peon-cum-

Sweeper w.e.f. December 2006 is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workmen is entitled to

and from which date?"

2. After receipt of dispute and notice issued to the

parties, Ist party workman submitted statement of claim on

22-4-2009. It is his case that he completed 240 day's service.

His services are terminated without notice under Section

25-F of I.D. Act. He prayed for reinstatement with back

wages.

3. The management filed Written Statement on

22-3-11 opposing the claim of the workman. The workman

filed affidavit of his evidence on 2-4-2011 along with

documents.

4. Today Ist party workman submitted application. It

is submitted that he is not desiring to prosecute his claim

under reference. Reasons are given that as fresh recruitment

is undertaken by the Bank and in case of appointment, Ist

party workman would not prosecute his claim. The Ist Party

workman is identified by Advocate Pramod Kumar Dwivedi

by filing vakalatnama.

5. In pursuance of above, the dispute under reference

needs to be disposed as Ist party workman is not

prosecuting the same. Therefore reference is disposed off.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1727.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;-II, paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 353@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@196@2002&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No, ID No.

353/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17.07.2013.

[No. L-12012/196/2002-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 351/2005

Registered on 16.8.2005

Sh. Prem Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Madan Singh,

1082 F, Sector 7B, Chandigarh.

Case No. I.D. 353/2005

Registered on 16.8.2005

Shri Jageshwar Singh, S/o Sh. Balli Ram,

House No. 3714, Sector 22-C,

Chandigarh.

....Petitioners

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4751

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Sector 17B, Chandigarh.

....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

.....Shri M.P.S. Mann Adv.

For the Management

.....Sh. J.S.Sathi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on June 28, 2013

Central Government Vide Order No. 12012/179/2002

[IR(B-II)] dated 24.2.2003 and Order No. 12012/196/2002

[IR(B-II)] dated 16.4.2003. In exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section

(2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

'Act') has referred the following Industrial disputes

respectively for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

ID No. 351/2005

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

and Sind Bank in terminating the services of

Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Madan Singh, Ex-Peon (Daily

Wage Basis) w.e.f. 31.12.2001 without any notice and

without any payment of retrenchment compensation

is just and legal? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?"

ID No. 353/2005

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

and Sind Bank in terminating the services of

Sh. Jageshwar Singh, Ex-Peon (Daily Wage Basis)

w.e.f. 1.1.2002 without any notice and without any

payment of retrenchment compensation in violation

of statutory provisions of Section 25F of the I.D.

Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not, what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date?"

In the above references common question of law

and fact of the legality of the termination of the services of

the workmen in violation of Section 25F of the Act is

involved, hence they are being decided by this common

award.

As per claim statements workman Prem Singh of ID

No. 351/2005 w.e.f. 4th July, 2000 and Jageshwar Singh of

ID No. 353/2005 w.e.f. 15.3.2000 had been employed by the

bank on daily wages as casual labour. Both the workman

continuously worked up to 31.12.2001 when their services

were abruptly terminated by the Branch Manager orally on

the ground of directions from Zonal Office to terminate the

services of casual labour and other temporary staff. The

case of the workmen is that they had completed more than

240 days of service without any break in the immediate

preceding year and their services had been terminated in

violation of Section 25F of the Act. They had also stated in

claim statement about the employment of one Kamal after

the termination of their services and they have alleged the

violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act also.

The claims were contested by the respondents and

it was stated that the workmen had been engaged by Branch

Manager without following any procedure and being a

backdoor entry they do not acquire any right to continue

in service and they are not entitled to the protection of

Section 25F of the Act. They had been engaged as casual

labour only to meet the exigencies. The provisions of the

Act are not applicable in the cases of workmen.

Appointment of any other person after the termination of

the workmen was also denied by the management.

Workmen examined themselves in their respective

cases and on behalf of the management Balkar Singh was

examined. Workmen in their cases filed photocopies of

documents to prove their employment with the bank. The

management has admitted the documents placed on record.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the evidence on record. It is not disputed that the

workmen were in the employment of the respondent. From

the documents available on record it is also proved that

the workmen were in the employment of the bank for the

alleged period. Learned counsel for workmen submitted

that from documents available on record it is clearly proved

that the workmen had worked more than 240 days in the

bank in the 12 calendar months preceding the date of

termination and admittedly their services were terminated

without following the procedure provided in Section 25F

of the Act.

Learned counsel for the management argued that

since the appointment of the aforesaid workmen was not

according to law and rules hence, they are not entitled to

the protection of Section 25F of the Act and termination of

their services is not retrenchment.

I do not subscribe to the view of the learned counsel

for the management. In Srirangam Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited Versus Labour Court Madurai 1996(2) LLJ 216 where

the workman was appointed as a temporary clerk by the

bank, in defiance of its rules and regulations, the termination

of his service was held to be retrenchment in view of the

wide amplitude of language of the definition of

'retrenchment', by a Division Bench of Madras High Court.

The Hon'ble Court held that whether the appointment was

made in accordance with the law or not, does not make any

difference, and what is of relevance is the fact of

employment and not the legality or otherwise, of it.

Similarly, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High

Court in Rajesh Kumar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

(1994) 2 LLJ 320 held that termination of the employment of

a probationer or of an invalidly appointed worker will be a

retrenchment because an invalid appointment is not one of

4752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the exceptions to the provision of the main difinition of

retrenchment.

Accordingly I am of the view that the workmen are

entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Irrespective

of the fact that they have not been appointed as per

recruitment rules. However they must qualify for the

protection of Section 25F of the Act. For the protection of

Section 25F of the Act it is necessary that they should

have completed 240 days service during one year preceding

the date of their termination. The learned counsel for

management is not in a position to dispute the fact which

is evident from the evidence on record. I am therefore of

the view that workmen are entitled to the protection of

Section 25F of the Act and as their services were terminated

without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the

Act, the termination is void ab initio.

So far as the relief is concerned the learned counsel

for workmen relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab

and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 17931 of 2012 Zonal

Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Roshan Lal and

Another decided on November 02, 2012 and in CWP No.

18154 of 2007 Baljit Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court decided

on May 26, 2010 requested that the reinstatement be granted

with past service benefits and the workmen will forego the

back wages. I find the argument of the learned counsel for

workmen quite reasonable. It is therefore held that the action

of the management in terminating the services of the

workmen is not legal and justified. The workmen Prem Singh

of ID No. 351/2005 and Jageshwar Singh of ID No. 353/

2005 are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service

but without back wages. Management is directed to take

them back in service within one month of receiving the

copy of the award. A copy of the award be placed on the

record of ID No. 351/2005 and 353/2005 each. Hard and soft

copies of the award be sent to the Central Government and

one copy of the award be sent to the District Judge

Chandigarh for information and further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1728.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

dksy Mke gkbMªks bySfDVªd ikWoj izkstsDV ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ&2] paMhx<+

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28@06@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@112@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

managment of The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro

Electric Power Project & others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/112/2010-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGAR

PRESENT: Shri A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 74/2010

Registered on 26.10.2010

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Khazana Ram, Village & PO

Dhawal, Tehsil-Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).

....Applicant

Versus

The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power

Project, NTPC, VPO, Barmana, Bilaspur.

The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and

Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,

Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla.

Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,

Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayan,

PO Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi.

....Respondents

APPEARNACES :

For the workman

None for workman

For the Management

Sh. VP Singh for

respondent No. 1,

Sh. HR Sharma for

respondent No. 3.

AWARD

Passed on 7.5.2013.

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

112/2010 [IR(DU)] dated 29.9.2010, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4753

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor engaged by

NTPC Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project, Bilaspur,

in terminating the services of their workman Sh.

Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Khazana Ram w.e.f. 01/8/2008

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?"

As per claim statement Respondent No. 1 M/s NTPC

Limited Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project (in short

NTPC) has been constructing dam at Harmoda. It has

engaged Respondent No. 2 M/s Italian Thai Development

Private Company Ltd. (in short ITD) for construction work

which in turn engaged respondent No. 3 M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors (in short AKS) as sub

contractor/petty contractor. The workman had been

appointed through respondent No. 3 as unskilled labour

on 3.9.2005 and he worked continuously till his

retrenchment on 31.7.2008. According to the claimant,

respondent No. 1 NTPC was his principal employer. He has

alleged the violation of the provisions of Section 25G and

25H of the Act as at the time of his retrenchment the juniors

were retained in the service and after his termination fresh

hands were appointed without calling him to join. The

project is likely to take many years for completion and

number of workers engaged in the project is more than 700.

The employer was required to take permission from the

appropriate Government before retrenching the workman

but the employer did not comply the provisions of law in

this regard. The employer has sufficient funds and the job

is of permanent nature. The claimant is without job. He has

prayed for appropriate relief.

Respondent No. 2 AKS did not appear despite

sufficient service of notice and the case proceeded against

him. Claim was however contested by respondent No. 1

NTPC and respondent No. 3 ITD. NTPC denied that he is

the employer of the claimant. According to it, it had

engaged ITD for construction of the said dam who had

further engaged respondent No. 2 as sub-contractor and

the claimant had been appointed by respondent No. 2 AKS.

NTPC is not the appointing authority of the claimant and

has no concern. It was also stated that the construction

work of the project is leading to completion and it is

intermittent in nature. Further Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power

Project is not an 'industrial establishment' as per law and

the claim of the claimant be dismissed.

Respondent No. 3 contested the case to say that the

work and status of the respondents as alleged in the claim

statement is not denied but the workman had worked with

its contractor i.e., Respondent No. 2 intermittently and not

continously. The retrenchment had been made strictly in

accordance with the provisions of law on partial completion

of work.

Workman failed to appear for his evidence despite

several opportunities given to him. Hence his evidence

was closed. Respondent No. 1 and 3 however filed affidavits

and examined witnesses.

None appeared for the workman at the time of

arguments. I heard the representatives of the respondent

No. 1 and 3. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence

of HR Sharma representative of Respondent No. 3 it appears

that the workman had been employed and terminated by

respondent No. 2 AKS Engineers who did not contest the

claim, and, AKS Engineers was a sub contractor of

respondent No. 3 ITD. The claimant has challenged that

his termination is in violation of Section 25G and 25H of the

Act. But there is no evidence in support of the alleged

violation. Hence, the termination of the service of the

workman cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified. The

reference is therefore answered against the claimant. Let

two hard copies and one soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government as per the directions of the Central

Government.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1729.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

dksy Mke gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV ,aM vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ&2] paMhx<+

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7]10] 61] 62] 63 vkSj 72@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@04] 05] 66] 67] 68]

114@2010&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7, 10, 61,

62, 63 and 72/2010) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of The General

Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project & others

and their workman which was received by the Central

Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/04, 05, 66, 67, 68 and 114/2010-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

4754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Case No. ID No. 7/2010

Registered on 4.5.2010.

Sh. Sada Ram S/o Sh. Daulat Ram, VPO Bahot Kasol,

Tehsil and District Bilaspur (HP), Bilaspur.

ID No. 10/2010

Registered on 4.5.2010.

Sh. Mast Ram, S/o Sh. Majnu Ram, Village Kangar,

PO Chambi, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi.

ID No. 61/2010

Registered on 30.8.2010

Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Rameshwar Singh, Village

Bahru, PO Tatehal, Tehsil Palampur, Kangra.

ID No. 62/2010

Registered on 30.8.2010

Sh. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Dihnu Ram, Village

Lachoria, PO Thaki Matti Via Bhalie, Tehsil Salooni,

Chamba.

ID No. 63/2010

Registered on 30.8.2010

Sh. Jeet Ram S/o Sh.Diwan Chand, Village Abbotoo,

PO Bharoli, Tehsil Dehra, Kangra.

ID No. 72/2010

Registered on 26.10.2010

Sh. Chanchu Ram S/o Sh. Gurditu Ram, Village and

PO Bahol Kasol, Tehsil and District. Bilaspur (HP)

....Applicants

VERSUS

The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power

Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.

The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and

Contractors Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project,

Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla.

Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,

Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village Kayan,

PO Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi.

....Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

—

None

For the Management—

Sh. VP Singh for

respondent No. 1,

Sh. H.R. Sharma for

respondent No. 3

AWARD

Passed on 6.5.2013

The Central Government vide Notification

No. L-42012/4/2010 [IR(DU)] No. L-42012/5/2010 [IR(DU)]

both dated 15.4.2010 and No. L-42012/66/2010 [IR(DU)],

No. L-42012/67/2010 [IR(DU)] and No. L-42012/68/2010

[IR(DU)] all dated 10-8-2010 and No. L-42012/114/2010

[IR(DU)] 29.9.2010 by exercising its power under Section

10 Sub-Section 1 Clause (d) and Sub-Section (2A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short Act) has referred the

following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.

OD No. 7/2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor of the

management of Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project,

NTPC, in terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Sada Ram. w.e.f. 13/8/2008 is legal and justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

ID No. 10/2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor of the

management of Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project,

NTPC, in terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Mast Ram w.e.f. 13/8/2008 is legal and justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

ID No. 61/2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor engaged by

NTPC Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project, Bilaspur

(HP), in terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Raj Kumar w.e.f. 13/8/2008 is legal and justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

ID No. 62/2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor engaged by

NTPC Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project, Bilaspur

(HP), in terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 29/8/2008 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

ID No. 63/2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor engaged by

NTPC Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project, Bilaspur

(HP), in terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Jeet Ram w.e.f. 29/8/2008 is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

ID No. 72/2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors, a contractor engaged by

NTPC Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project, Bilaspur

(HP), in terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Chanchu Ram S/o Sh. Gurditu Ram w.e.f. 01/8/

2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

Since in all the disputes common questions of law

and fact are involved hence they are being decided by this

common award.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4755

As per claim statements Respondent No. 1 M/s NTPC

Limited Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project (in short

NTPC) has been constructing dam at Harmoda. It has

engaged Respondent No. 3 M/s Italian Thai Development

Private Company Ltd. (in short ITD) for construction work

which is turn engaged respondent No. 2 M/s. AKS

Engineers and Contractors (in short AKS) as sub-

contractor/petty contractor. The claimants-workmen had

been appointed through respondent No. 2 on different dates

and they worked continuously till their retrenchment which

also took place on different dates. As per claim statements

the date of joining and date of retrenchment of the different

claimants are as follows:-

ID No.

Name

Date of

Category

joining

retrenchment

7/2010

Sada Ram

17.8.2004

13.8.2008

Helper/

unskilled

workman

10/2010

Mast Ram

01.6.2005

13.8.2008

Helper/

unskilled

mazdoor

61/2010

Raj Kumar

07.08.2004 13.8.2008

Driver/

unskilled

mazdoor

62/2010

Ramesh

06.09.2005 03.9.2008

Unskilled

Kumar

workman

63/2010

Jeet Ram

24.7.2004

03.9.2008

Driver heavy

vehicle

72/2010

Chanchu

7.8.2004

31.7.2008

Unskilled

Ram

workman

According to the claimants respondent No. 1 NTPC

was their principal employer. They alleged the violation of

the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act as at the

time of their retrenchment the juniors were retained in the

service and after their termination fresh hands were

appointed without calling them to join. The project is likely

to take many years for completion. Number of workers

engaged in the project is more than 700 hence the employer

was required to take permission from the appropriate

Government also before retrenching the workmen but the

employer did not comply the provisions of law in this

regard. The employer has sufficient funds and the job is of

permanent nature. The claimants are without job. They

have prayed for appropriate relief.

Respondent No. 2 AKS did not appear despite

sufficient service of notice and the case proceeded ex parte

against him. Claim was however contested by respondent

No. 1 NTPC and respondent No. 3 ITD. NTPC denied that

he is the employer of the claimants. According to it, it had

engaged ITD for construction of the said dam who had

further engaged respondent No. 2 as sub contractor and

the claimants had been appointed by respondent No. 2

AKS. NTPC is not the appointing authority of the claimants

and has no concern. It was also stated that the construction

work of the project is leading to completion and it is

intermittent in nature. Further Koldam Hydro Electric Power

Project is not an 'industrial establishment' as per law and

the claims of the claimants be dismissed.

Respondent No. 3 contested the case to say that the

work and status of the respondents as alleged in the claim

statement is not denied but the workmen had worked with

its contractor i.e. Respondent No. 2 intermittently and not

continuously. The retrenchment had been made strictly in

accordance with the provisions of law on partial completion

of work. The construction work at the site is leading to

completion. It is intermittent in nature and the project is

not an industrial establishment.

Workmen failed to appear for their evidence despite

several opportunities given to them. Hence their evidence

was closed. Respondent No. 1 and 3 however file their

affidavits and also examined the deponents.

None appeared for the workmen at the time of

arguments. I heard the representatives of the respondent

No. 1 and 3. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence

of HR Sharma representative of Respondent No. 3 it appears

that the workmen had been employed and terminated by

respondent No. 2 AKS Engineers who did not contest the

claim the AKS Engineers was a sub-contractor of

respondent No. 3 ITD. The claimants have challenged their

termination alleging that it is in violation of Section 25G

and 25H of the Act. But there is no evidence in support of

the alleged violation. Hence, the termination of the service

of the claimants-workmen cannot be termed as illegal or

unjustified. The reference is therefore answered against

the claimants. Let a copy of the award be placed on the

record of each of related IDs. i.e. ID No. 7/2010, 10/2010, 61/

2010, 62/2010, 63/2010, 72/2010 respectively. Let two hard

copies and one soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government as per the directions of the Central Government.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1730.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

Vsyhdke] lax:j ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

691@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-

2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@165@2001&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 691/

4756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The General Manager Telecom,

Sangrur and their workman which was received by the

Central Government on 28-06-2013.

[No. L-40012/165/2001-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 691/2005

Registered on 25-08-2005

Sh. Ajaib Singh, S/o Sh. Mahar Singh, Village Bharini Bhatt,

PO Kalake, Tehsil Barnala, Sangrur.

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager Telecom, Sangrur-148001, Punjab

....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Balwinder Singh.

For the Management :

Sh. G.C. Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on March 19, 2013

Central Government vide Order No. L-40012/165/

2001-IR(DU) dated 31-8-2001, by exercising its powers under

Section 10, Sub-section (1) Clasue (d) and Sub-section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom

in terminating the service of Sh. Ajaib Singh S/o

Sh. Mahar Singh without paying him any

retrenchment compensation is legal and just? If not

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from which date?"

The case of the workman is that he had been

appointed as Special Police Officer (SPO) on daily wage

basis under Section 17 of the police Act, 1961 by S.P.

Sangrur. His engagement was approved by the Department

of Telecom O/o Telecom District Engineer Sangrur for

Watchman duty under SDO (T) Barnala and accordingly

the workman joined the duty at Barnala on 20-6-1992. He

worked there up to his disengagement on 31-1-1997 when

he was told that his services were no longer required by

the respondent as the watch and ward of the departmental

installation had been entrusted to a private contractor and

therefore if he wanted to continue with his duties as a

watchman, he should report to the contractor. The workman

has alleged that before the termination of his services he

had put in four years seven months and eleven days'

continuous service with the respondent and his termination

is in violation of Section 25F the Act. He has asked for a

direction to the respondent to allow him to join duty with

immediate effect with continuity of service and back wages.

The claim was contested by the respondent. It was

alleged that the claimant had filed CWP No. 10532 of 1997

before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

wherein the State of Punjab, Senior Superintendent of Police

Sangrur, Union of India, Telecom District Engineer Sangrur,

Assistant Engineer (HRD) )O/o Telecom District Engineer

Sangrur and SDO Telegraph Barnala had been impleaded.

The said CWP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court by

observing that there is no relationship of master and

servant or employer-employee between the claimant and

the respondents because he was never appointed by the

respondents. The workman has concealed this fact and

the present claim petition before this Tribunal is not

maintainable in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

It was also pleaded that department of Telecom (now BSNL)

is not an industry and the claimant is not a workman and

for this reason also the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On

merits it was contended that the claimant was not recruited/

appointed by the respondent nor he is the member of the

service, nor any appointment letter under the Recruitment

Rules was issued, nor his services were terminated by the

respondent as alleged and nor there is any post of Special

Police Officer (SPO) in the erstwhile Department of Telecom

and BSNL. It was further alleged that in fact the erstwhile

respondent had requested the Superintendent of Police

Sangrur to provide security for the Telephone Exchange

due to disturbed conditions in Punjab and in pursuance of

the request of the Department the Superintendent of Police

Sangrur had appointed the claimant as Special Police Officer

under Section 17 of the Police Act 1961 on daily wage basis

and the workman was deputed to the Department of

Telecom Services for the purpose of security of Telephone

Exchange and after his appointment as SPO by the S.P.

Sangrur he had been deployed at Barnala by the department.

There is no relationship of master and servant between the

respondent and the workman and therefore the question

of termination of the service of workman by respondent

does not arise. It has also been pleaded that the workman

had himself left the department at his own will without any

intimation. According to the respondent the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

The workman filed a rejoinder and about the

judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.

10532/1997 he said that the Hon'ble High Court has held

that the relationship of master and servant or an employer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4757

and employee never came into existence between the

petitioner and the Government of Punjab. According to the

workman the Hon'ble High Court has clearly confirmed the

relationship of claimant and the respondent in its judgment.

It has been further alleged that the workman worked under

the supervision and Control of the officers of the

management hence, his claim is well maintainable.

In evidence the workman examined himself and filed

copy of the order dated 27.11.1991 of Superintendent of

Police Sangrur and of order dated 10.12.1991 of the O/o

Telecom District Engineer Sangrur. While on behalf of the

management Manohar Lal DE (Legal) O/o JMT/D Sangrur

examined himself and filed copies of CWP No. 10532 of

1997 and of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the

said writ petition.

After the evidence of the parties none-appeared for

workman after 21.1.2011 and as none-appeared on behalf

of workman to argue the case despite several adjournments,

I heard the learned counsel for management and perused

the evidence on record.

In the very first place it should be made clear that it is

now well-settled that the Telecom Department is an industry.

The learned counsel for the management also does not

press this plea during the arguments.

Both the parties in their pleadings have heavily relied

on the judgment of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition

No.10532 of 1997. A copy of the judgment has been provided

by the management as paper No. 18. It is a common judgment

in CWP No. 3684 of 1997 Pavittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and Others, CWP No. 3683 of 1997 Jaswant Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and Others and CWP No. 10532 of 1997 Ajaib

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others.

The Hon'ble Court referred Annexure P2 order by

which petitioner Pavittar Singh of CWP No. 3684/97 had

been engaged as Special Police Officer and held that—

“A careful reading of this order along with letter

Annexure P1 dated 1.7.1991 written by Chief General

Manager Telecom Punjab Circle Ambala to the

officers subordinate to him shows that the petitioners

were engaged for saving the Telecom Department

and not the Police Department Punjab. In other words

the relationship of master and servant or an employer

and employee never came into existence between

the petitioner and the Government of Punjab............”

It is clear from this judgment of Hon'ble High Court

that the Hon'ble High Court did not hold that there is no

relationship of employer and employee between the Telecom

Department and the workman. The relationship of employer

and employee between the Government of Punjab and the

petitioners only was held to be non-existent. Therefore the

management can't say that the Hon'ble High Court has

held that there is no relationship of master and servant

between the Telecom Department and the workman.

It may also be mentioned here that from the judgment

of the Hon'ble High Court it is clear that the workmen in

their writ petitions had sought Court's intervention for

directing the respondents to appoint them as constables

in the regular services of the Police Department of the State

of Punjab. Thus the cause of action in the writ petitions

was against the Police Department and State of Punjab and

not against the Telecom Department. Therefore the

relationship of employer and employee between the Telecom

Department and the workmen was not in question in the

said writ petitions.

A copy of order dated 27-11-1997 of the SP Sangrur

has been filed as Annexure C1 of the claim statement. It has

not been disputed by the management. From this order it is

clear that the workman has been appointed as Special Police

Officer under Section 17 of the Police Act on the demand of

Telephone Exchange Sangrur for security purposes. It

appears from this order that by appointment it is meant

that the person concerned has been conferred the powers

of a Special Police Officer under Section 17 of the Police

Act. Admittedly the wages were paid by the Telecom

Department. The letter dated 10.12.1991 of the O/o the

Telecom District Sangrur Annexure C2 of the claim

Statement shows that the workman worked under the

control and supervision of the Telecom Department and

has attendance was being marked in the Department.

Through this letter the Assistant Engineer HRD

communicated the approval of Telecom District Engineer

Sangrur of engagement of the workman as SPO for

watchman duty under the SDOT Barnala. Copy of the order

was forwarded to SDOT Barnala with the direction that he

will watch the attendance and draw the allowances etc. of

the official. Therefore there remains no doubt that the

workman remained into the employment of the respondent.

The management witness Manohar Lal in his statement

has admitted that the workman worked up to 31-1-1997 and

he was paid wages by the department during his posting in

the department.

But the question is whether the service of the

workman had been terminated by the management. There

is no termination order. Workman says that when he went

on 31-5-1997 to get the roaster for the next month he was

told about his disengagement and about assigning the

watch and ward work to contractor. While the case of the

management is that the workman left the job of his own

will. The workman in his statement during cross-

examination has denied that he had left the job of his own

will. But the management witness Manohar Lal during his

cross-examination struck to the stand taken by the

management. There is no evidence that the watch and ward

work of the establishment has been assigned to contractor

as pleaded by the workman. Management witness was not

4758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

given a suggestion even in this regard. I am therefore of

the view that the workman has failed to prove that his

services were terminated by the management. In the absence

of the termination of the services by the management the

payment of any retrenchment compensation to the workman

was not required.

It is therefore held that the services of the workman

were not terminated by the management of Telecom and

the workman himself left the job. The reference is

accordingly anwered against the workman. Let two copies

of the award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1731.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lc&fMoht+uy

vkQhlj] Vsyhdke ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 906@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@28@1999&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 906/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom

and their workman which was received by the Central

Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/28/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 906/2005

Registered on 13.9.2005

Smt. Naina Devi, R/o H.No. 713/6, Bapu Dham Colony,

Sector 26, Chandigarh.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, Telephone-I, O/o The

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman :

Sh. P.K. Longia Adv.

For the Management :

Sh. Anish Babbar Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 16th April, 2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

28/99/IR(DU) Dated 22.7.1999, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of Sub Divisional Officer,

Telephone-I, Chandigarh is terminating the services

of Smt. Naina Devi W/o Sh. Rajinder Parashad is

legal and jusitified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?"

In the claim statement the workman has alleged to be

in the employment of the respondent w.e.f. 9.5.1995 as daily

wager. The claim is not consistent about the date of

termination of the workman. In para 1 she states to be in

the employment up to 15.9.1996 while according to para 2 it

was up to 16.5.1996 and according to para 3 it was up to

16.6.1996. She has however alleged that she had completed

240 days of service of the date of her termination without

any break, yet her services were terminated without any

notice, notice pay or compensation. She has claimed her

reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.

The claim was contested by the management. On

merit it was contended that the workman had worked as

part-time water woman from 9.5.1995 to 15.3.1996 for five to

six hours a day. Thereafter she left the respondent of her

own will and joined a contractor as contract labour w.e.f.

16.3.1996 and she was paid by the contractor. There is no

relationship of master and servant between the management

and the workman as she had not been recruited or appointed

by the management. The claim of the workman therefore

has no merits and deserves to be dismessed.

Workman filed a replica to say that the she never

worked under a contractor. She was posted in the office

and not in the field and her duty was to supply the water to

the staff and distribute the telephone bills to the consumers.

She was not a part timer and she had worked for full

8 hours and performed her duties in SDO Telephone Office

regularly from 9.5.1995 to 15.9.1996.

In evidence the workman examined her while on

behalf of management Balbir Chand of the Department was

examined. Management relied on certain papers also. It is

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4759

important to note that the workman also had summoned

certain documents from the management to which the stand

of the management was that since the workman was

engaged by a contractor hence, there was no occasion for

the management to maintain any document regarding

workman. The Court in its order dated 1.6.2004 has observed

that under the circumstances the workman has option to

prove the documents summoned by her through secondary

evidence. The workman however could not produce any

secondary evidence.

Written arguments were filed on behalf of the parties.

I have perused the evidence on record and also the written

arguments of the parties.

The reference is about the legality and justification

of the termination of the services of the workman. She has

claimed her reinstatement with continuity of service and

back wages. There is no dispute about regularization or

conferment of temporary status. The learned counsel for

workman has argued that since the workman was not

seeking regularization hence, it is no use to argue that her

recruitment was not as per Rules and she had not been

issued any appointment letter. There is no evidence that

the workman was a contract employee. The management

admits the working of the workman for the management as

part time water woman from 9.5.1995 to 15.3.1996 and alleged

the engagement of the workman thereafter by a contractor.

But the management failed to prove the contract and the

payment through contractor. The story of workman working

under the contractor is concocted one. There is no evidence

to substantiate the management's plea that the workman

had left the job of her own on 16.3.1996. The learned counsel

had annexed certain documents along with written

arguments but barring the judgment of the Hon'ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 22097

of 2010 no documents is worth-consideration at this stage

as they have been filed after the close of the case and

behind the back of the management. Judgment in CWP No.

22097 of 2010 is not applicable in the present case as the

workman before the Hon'ble High Court was a part timer.

The employment of the workman as part timer was not in

dispute but in the present case the employment itself of

the workman with the management is disputed as the

management alleges that she was a contract employee.

As it has been noted above, the management also

has argued that the claim is vague and unspecific and

cannot be relied upon. Regarding the merits the

management has argued that the workman worked under

the instructions and supervision of a contractor for the

period from 16.3.1996 to 15.9.1996 and the wages were also

paid by the contractor to her however in the presence of

the SDO. The management has filed photocopies of

payment of receipts and also of a note signed by the

workman saying that she had received all the payments

from the contractor and no balance is due on 17.6.1993. It is

important that workman in her cross-examination has

admitted that she had received the payment and had

executed the documents to acknowledge the receipt of

money. She further stated that photocopies of receipt placed

on the record by the respondent is correct. After this

statement of the workman documents were marked as

Exhibit M1 to M8. The management has relied on these

documents. According to the management it is clear from

the evidence that the workman was not in the employment

of the management at the time of her alleged termination

hence there is no question of terminating her services by

the management.

In the first place it is to be noted that the relationship

of employer and employee is to be proved by the party

who asserts it. Here the workman is alleging to be in the

employment of the management hence it was for her to

prove the factum of employment. She has to stand at her

own legs and she cannot take the benefit of the weakness

of the management's case. Burden of proof was on the

workman and the onus was to shift to the management to

prove that the workman was an employee of the contractor

after she had discharged her burden. I agree with the learned

counsel for the workman that the contract agreement

Annexure R1 to R3 of the written statement are of no use as

they do not relate to the period in question. But Exhibit M1

which was been admitted by the workman during her cross-

examination clearly shows that some contractor was her

pay master. According to this document she was in the

employment of the contractor.

Payment sheets concerning to period from March

1996 to September 1996 (Exhibit M2 to M8) have been filed

by the management. It has been argued by the management

that the payment had been made to the workman by the

contractor through Exhibit M1 to M8 in the presence of the

SDO of the Department.

It is important to note that the workman alleges her

termination in 1996. There is no evidence that in 1996 at the

time of the termination of her services she was in the

employment of the management. Under the circumstances

the termination of her services in 1996 by the management

cannot be accepted. The reference is therefore answered

against the workman. Let two copies of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1732.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

dksy Mse gkbMªks bySfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k @Je U;k;ky;

uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 191 vkSj 193@2011½ dks

4760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@269 vkSj 275@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 191 and

193/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The General Manager,

Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project & Others and their

workman which was received by the Central Government

on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/269 and 275/2010-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.

Case No. ID No. 191/2011

Registered on 8.6.2011

Sh. Dagu Ram S/o Sh. Het Ram, Village Chakuli,

PO Seri Kothi, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, Mandi.

ID No. 193/2011

Registered on 8.6.2011

Sh. Hem Raj S/o Sh. Amaru Ram, Village, Khanagla,

PO Lagdhar, Tehsil Kotli, Mandi.

....Applicants

VERSUS

The General Manager, Koldam Hydro Electric Power

Project, NTPC, VPO Baramana, Bilaspur.

Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd., Kol

Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayam,

PO Slapper, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi.

M/s U.R. Infrastructure Company Private Ltd., Village

Chamb, Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur.

....Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

— Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the

workman

For the Management — Sh. V.P. Singh for

respondent No. 1 Sh.

Shamsher Singh for

respondent No. 2.

AWARD

Passed on 7.5.2013

Vide Order No. L-42012/269/2010-IR(DU)] and L-

42012/275/2010-IR(DU)], both dated 6.5.2011 the Central

Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred

industrial disputes between the aforesaid parties for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

ID No. 191/2011

"Whether the retrenchment of services of Sh. Dagu

Ram S/o Sh. Het Ram w.e.f. 14/8/2008 by M/s. U.R.

Infrastructure Company Private Limited, Chamb,

Bilaspur, a sub contractor of M/s. Italian Thai

Development Public Limited, a contractor of M/s.

NTPC Limited without following the principal of 'Last

come first go' is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

ID No. 193/2011

"Whether the retrenchment of services of Sh. Hem

Raj S/o Sh. Amaru Ram w.e.f. 14/8/2008 by M/s. U.R.

Infrastructure Company Private Limited, Chamb,

Bilaspur, a sub contractor of M/s Italian Thai

Development Public Limited, a contractor of M/s.

NTPC Limited without following the principal of 'Last

come first go' is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

Since in both the IDs common questions of law and

fact are involved, hence they are being decided by this

common award.

As per claim statements General Manager NTPC Kol

Dam Hydro Electric Power Project (in short NTPC) is the

principal employer who is constructing the dam and

respondent No. 2 M/s. Project Manager Italian Thai

Development Company Limited (in short ITD) is its main

contractor while respondent No. 3 M/s. UR Infrastructure

Company (in short URI) is a Sub-contractor/Petty contractor

of respondent No. 2. The workmen had been appointed

through URI and they had joined services on 6.1.2005 (Dagu

Ram) and 6.12.2004 (Hem Raj) as Assistant Labour

Attendants in the skilled labour workman category. Their

services were however terminated on 14.8.2008 in violation

of Section 25G of the Act. While terminating their services

juniors were retained in service. In the claim statements

violation of Section 25F of the Act has aslo been alleged

and it has been said that new hands had been recruited

after the retrenchment of the workman without calling them

(i.e. workman). They have prayed for an appropriate relief.

Respondent No. 3 did not contest the claim. He failed

to appear and file written statement despite notice. Case

proceeded against him. Respondent No. 1 and 2 however

put in their appearances and filed written statements. In

the respective written statements of the aforesaid

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4761

respndents the work and status of the respondents as

alleged in the claim statement has not been disputed. The

case of the NTPC is that workmen are not the employees of

the NTPC. They were the appointees of Respondent URI

and NTPC has no concern with them. Both the respondents

have pleaded that project is leading to completion and the

construction work is intermittent in nature. Respondent

ITD has further cleared that the workmen had worked with

their contractor i.e. Respondent URI intermittently and not

continuously and the retrenchment was made strictly in

accordance with the provision of law. The decision to

retrench the workmen was taken under the compelling

circumstance on partial completion of work.

At the evidence stage the workmen failed to appear

and file their affidavits despite several opportunities given

to them. Hence their evidence was closed on 7.5.2013.

I heard the ARs of the respondent No. 1 and 2. It may

be noted that Section 25H of the Act provides right of re-

employment of a retrenched workman but that right is not

a subject matter of the reference. The reference is about

the violation or otherwise of the Section 25G of the Act.

The workmen have alleged the violation of said provision

by stating that while retrenching their services juniors were

retained in service but the claimants have failed to produce

any evidence in support of their allegations. Hence it is not

proved that the workmen were retrenched without following

the principle of last come first go. The retrenchment is

therefore legal and justified. Workmen are not entitled to

any relief. Reference is answered against them. Copy of

the award be placed on each of the IDs i.e. ID No. 191/2011

and ID No. 193/2011. Let two hard copies and one soft

copy of the award be sent to the Central Government as

per the directions of the Central Government.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1733.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

VsyhdkWe] HkfVaMk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 806 vkSj 810@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 28-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@173 vkSj 172@1999&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 806 and

810/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The General Manager,

Telecom, Bhatinda and their workman which was received

by the Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/173 and 172/1999-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 806/2005

Registered on 6.9.2005

Shri Anil Kumar C/o The President Telecom Labour

Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bathinda.

Case No. I.D. 810/2005

Registered on 7.9.2005

Shri Pritam Singh C/o The President Telecom Labour

Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bathinda.

....Claimants

VERSUS

The General Manager, Telecom, Bathinda (Punjab).

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman :

Sh. Sudeep Singh, AR.

For the Management :

Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on March 18, 2013

The Central Government vide Order No. L-40012/173/

99-IR (DU) and No. L-40012/172/99-IR (DU) both dated

29.9.1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred

the following disputes for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

ID No. 806/2005

"Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Bathinda in terminating the

services of Sh. Anil Kumar just and legal. If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

ID No. 810/2005

"Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Bathinda in terminating the

services of Sh. Pritam Singh just and legal. If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?"

4762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

In both the references common question of law and

fact are involved hence, they are being decided by this

common award.

As per claim statements workman Anil Kumar of ID

No. 806/2005 on 1.8.1996 and Pritam Singh of ID. No. 810/

2005 on 31.1.1997 had been appointed by the management

on the permanent post of Clerk. Their services were however

terminated on 31.12.1997 without any charge-sheet, inquiry

or compensation. While terminating their services juniors

were retained and new hands were also recruited after their

termination. According to them termination of their services

is illegal. They have claimed their reinstatement with

continuity of service and back wages.

Claims were contested by the management.

According to the management the workmen had not been

engaged by the management nor the management paid

any wages to them. The management had entered into an

agreement with contractors for supply of contract labour.

The workmen might be working under the management

through the said contractor on daily wage basis. The

question of terminating the services of the workmen by the

management does not arise. No seniority list about the

contract labour is maintained by the management. The claim

of the workmen therefore has no substance and is liable to

be dismissed.

During the hearing of the petition the workmen

absented and their representative withdrew from the cases

saying that he has no instructions from the workmen. the

workmen failed to appear despite notices sent by registered

post to them. Vide order dated 30.8.2010 in ID No. 806/2005

and vide order dated 2.9.2010 in ID No. 810/2005 the cases

were ordered to proceed ex-parte against workmen.

In ID No. 810/2005 workmen had examined himself

and one witness Mukund Lal in evidence before order dated

2.9.2010 of ex-parte hearing. He had filed photocopies of

certain documents also. In ID No. 806/2005 however no

witness including workman could be examined. On behalf

of management however Major Singh SDE (Legal) in ID

No. 806/2005 and Ashok Kumar SDE (Legal) in 810/2005

were exmained. Management filed the agreement and related

papers in both the cases.

As none apeared for the workmen hence, I heard the

learned counsel for the management and perused the

evidence on record.

The only important point involved in these cases is

whether there is a relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workmen. Need not to

say that since the workmen are alleging to be the employees

of the management the burden was on them to prove the

relationship.

In ID No. 806/2005 there is only the affidavit of

workman himself in support of his case. This affidavit

besides being self-serving is not worthy of credence

because the workman did not produce himself for cross-

examination by the management. There is no evidence of

his appointment by the management.

In ID No. 810/2005 there is however evidence of

workman and of one witness Mukund Lal in favour of

workman. Workman produced photocopies of daily diary

of a letter and of Attendance Register. But without originals,

the photocopies cannot be relied upon. The workman in

the case had summoned the original documents from the

management but the stand of the management was that

since the workman was not an appointee of the management

hence there is no record with the management and secondly

since the photocopies of the documents have been filed

by the workman hence, originals also must be in his

possession.

The workman Pritam Singh in his cross-examination

admitted that he had not been given any appointment letter.

He told that his application for recruitment had been

entertained by Telecom District Manager but he has no

copy of that application.

Mukand Lal witness of the workman in ID No. 810/

2005 was Senior TOA in the Office of Telecom GMT,

Bathinda at the time of filing his affidavit. According to him

the workman Pritam Singh had worked in his office from

31.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 and the work was beign allotted to

him by Head Clerk/JO TRA of GMT Bathinda and the

workman Pritam Singh worked under the complete control

and supervision of the officers of management, his

attendance was being marked by these officers and wages

were also being paid by the office. By the time of his cross-

examination the witness had been engaged on muster-roll.

It is a new case, that was pleaded neither by the workman

nor by the management. I do not find the evidence of

Mukand Lal worth-reliance.

In short in ID No. 810/2005 also there is no evidence

to say that the workman Pritam Singh had been appointed

and terminated by the management, was being paid wages

by the management, was working under the control and

supervision of the management and had integrated with

the management. It is important to cite here the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri

Cooperative Marketing Society Limited Versus State of

Tamil Nadu 2004-II-LLI 253 the Hon'ble Court held "No

single test be it control test organization test or any other

test was determinative test for determining the jural

relationship of employer and employee". The Hon'ble Court

held that the court is required to consider several factors

which would have a bearing on the result: (a) who is

appointing authority? (b) Who is pay master? (c) Who can

dismiss? (d) How long alternative service lasts? (e) The

extent of control and supervision, (f) The nature of job e.g.

whether it is professional or skilled work? (g) Nature of

establishment? (h) The right to reject.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4763

Considering the case of Pritam Singh of ID No. 810/

2005 in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court

it is clear that he has failed to prove that he was the employee

of the management.

In ID No. 806/2005 there is no evidence at all on

behalf of the workman.

Hence, in both the cases the workman concerned

cannot be taken to be an employee of the management.

There is no question of termination of their services by the

management. Consequently in both the cases i.e. in ID No.

806/2005 and 810/2005 the reference is decided against the

workman. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action and one copy

each of the award be placed on the record of ID No. 806/

2005 and ID No. 810/2005.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1734.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vflLVsUV

lqifjuVsaMsUV vkQ iksLV vkfQl] yqf/k;kuk ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ 2] paM+hx<+ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 387@2005 ½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@40@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 387/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Assistant Superintendent of

Post Office, Ludhiana and their workman which was

received by the Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/40/2005-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 387/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Charanjit Singh, S/o Sh. Inderjit Singh, C/o Kashmiri

Lal Karyana Store, House No. 136, Ludhiana.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, North City,

Sub-Division, Ludhiana (Punjab) Ludhiana.

...Respondents

APPERANCES

For the workman :

Sh. B.N. Sehgal.

For the Management :

Sh. K.K. Thakur.

AWARD

Passed on 4th March, 2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

40/2005-IR(DU)) dated 5.8.2005, 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 this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Assistant

Superintendent of Post Office, Ludhiana in removing

Sh. Charanjit Singh S/o Sh. Inderjit Singh, Ex-ED

Packer w.e.f. 5.7.2004 from the service without giving

him proper opportunity to defend his case and by

violating the provisions of ID Act is legal and

justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to and from which date?"

The workman was posted as Extra-Departmental

Packer (in short 'ED Packer') at Bus Stand Post Office

Ludhiana at the relevant time. In claim statement there is a

reference of two earlier terminations and reinstatements of

the workman but for the purpose of the present reference

the relevant facts are that after the second termination of

the workman he had served a demand notice dated 22.8.2003

on the management and during the conciliation proceedings

he had been reinstated in service and he had joined duties

at Bus Stand Post Office, Ludhiana on 5.9.2003. Thereafter

he was transferred to GDS BPM Khasi Kalan, Branch Office

Ludhiana where he was served a charge-sheet dated 10/

17.11.2003. He denied the charge in his reply dated 12.1.2004

and 21.6.2004 as he had never absented from duty

intentionally but had to remain on leave due the

circumstances beyond his control. In claim statement it

has been alleged that the inquiry was illegal, against the

rules and principles of natural justice, in the presence of

the workman no witness was examined, he was not granted

the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and he was

punished on the basis of no evidence. Further he was not

given any show cause notice before the punishment order

and was not granted any personal hearing and he was

removed from service illegally and arbitrarily on 8.6.2004/

5.7.2004. He has prayed for his reinstatement with

continuous service and back wages.

4764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The claim was contested by the respondents.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal was challenged on the ground

that the post of EDP is a civil post and any grievance

regarding this post has to be agitated before the CAT. It

was also alleged that the claimant is not a workman. On

merits it was alleged that the claimant had remained absent

from duty unauthorizedly from 1.9.2000 to 5.9.2003. He

however resumed his duties on 5.9.2003 after a period of

three years and three days and he was then proceeded

under Rule 10 of GDS Conduct and Employment Rules

2001 for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty. The

charge-sheet was issued to him vide memo of even number

dated 10.11.2003. Before the Inquiry Officer the claimant

admitted to have received the charge-sheet and he had

pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against him. In his

hand-written application submitted by him to the Inquiry

Officer on 8.1.2004 he had admitted the charges as correct.

The disciplinary authority after carefully going through

the report of the Inquiry Officer, defence statement of the

claimant and relevant records of the case came to the

conclusion that the claimant was guilty of the charge of

remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly for more than

three years and therefore he was removed from service.

According to management appropriate action has been

taken against the claimant according to the department

Rules and Regulations and after following the correct

procedure of giving him fair opportunity to defend himself.

In his replication the workman said that the Tribunal

has the jurisdiction and he is a workman. Regarding his

admission in the inquiry he said that it had not been made

voluntarily but under misrepresentation as he had been

directed to write down as wished by the Inquiry Officer

promising his reinstatement.

In evidence the workman examined himself and on

behalf of the respondent Amarjit Singh Sekhon, Assistant

Superintendent, Post Office was examined. Management

filed a copy of the inquiry record.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

have perused the evidence on record. Though in the claim

statement the inquiry has been assailed on the ground that

the prosecution witnesses were not examined in the

presence of the workman and he was not given any

opportunity to cross-examine them but it was not pressed

by the workman that the inquiry was not fair. From the

inquiry record made available by the management it is clear

that in fact no witness had been examined in the inquiry.

Therefore there was no occasion for examining any witness

in the presence or at the back of the workman or providing

him an opportunity to cross-examine. The punishment was

inflicted on the basis of the admission of the workman

himself. It is contained in his letter dated 28.1.2004 which is

MW1/1. In this letter it has been stated that the workman

has received the charge-sheet, he has not to appoint any

defence assistant and he admits the correctness of the

charge contained in the charge-sheet. In unequivocal terms

he stated that he could nto attend the duties from 1.9.2000

to 5.9.2003 and could not apply for leave as he was ill and

the family circumstances were also bad. Regarding this

admission the workman said nothing in his claim statement.

However when the management in its written statement

stated about this admission then in his replication workman

said that this admission in the inquiry had not been made

voluntarily but under misrepresentation as he had been

directed to write down as disired by the Inquiry Officer and

had been promised reinstatement.

Obviously, this statement in the replication is an

afterthought and cannot be considered as genuine.

Moreover it is conspicuously absent in the affidavit of the

workman. During cross-examination he has stated that he

had written according to the wishes of management officer

as he had been misrepresented that he will be reinstated.

But there is nothing in his statement to show that this

statement is regarding his admission contained in letter

MW1/1. I do not accept the contention of the workman

that his admission was result of some misrepresentation or

inducement by the management. The disciplinary authority

committed no wrong in acting upon the admission of the

workman. I need not to say that the admission is the best

evidence against it maker.

From the statement of the management-witness it

appears that the workman had not joined on 5.9.2003 on

account of any settlement in proceedings arising out of

demand notice dated 22.8.2003. The witness denied any

such agreement between the parties before conciliation

officer and also denied that the workman consequently

had applied for reinstatement. From the statement of the

management-witness it is clear that the workman had joined

on 5.9.2003 after his absence from duty from 1.9.2000.

It is however clear that the disciplinary authority

had not issued any show cause notice and opportunity of

personal hearing before awarding punishment had not

been given to the workman. The contention of the workman

in this regard finds support from the evidence on record. I

agree with the learned counsel for the workman that there

was a fault in decision-making procedure. The learned

counsel for the workman vehemently argued about the

harshness of punishment. The learned counsel for the

management on the other hand argued that the workman

was unauthorizedly absent from duty for three years and

the punishment awarded to him is appropriate.

In the first place it will be proper to make clear that

this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of

punishment. The learned counsel for workman cited in this

regard LIC of India Vs. R. Suresh 2008(2) SCT 664 wherein

the Apex Court held—

The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court being

wide and it having been conferred with the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4765

power to interfere with the quantum of

punishment.

It could go into the nature of charges, so as to

arrive at a conclusion whether the respondent

had misused his position or his acts are in

breach of trust conferred upon him by his

employer.

In exercising such jurisdiction the nature of

misconduct alleged, the conduct of the charges,

the manner in which the inquiry proceedings

had been conducted may be held to be a

relevant factor.

Each case must be decided on its own facts.

Indisputably discretion must be exercised

judicially; it cannot be based on whims or

caprice.

In the present case since the workman was not given

any notice of the proposed punishment and any opportunity

of personal

I am of the view that the punishment of the stoppage

of two increments permanently along with withholding back

wages will be sufficient and proper for the misconduct of

the workman.

It is therefore held that the action of the management

in removing the workman from the service without giving

him notice of proposed punishment and without giving

him opportunity of personal hearing is not legal and

justified. Punishment of removing of service is reduced to

stoppage of two increments permanently and the workman

is entitled to be reinstated without any back wages.

Management is directed to reinstate the workman within

one month from getting the copy of award. Let two copies

of the award be sent to the Central Government and one

copy to District Judge Ludhiana for information and further

necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1735.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy flx

,.M Vsyhdke bUthfu;j ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufn"ZV vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ&2] paM+hx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

418@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-

2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@167@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 418/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Divisional Sig & Telecom

Engineer, and their workman which was received by the

Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/167/2002-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 418/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Roop Das S/o Sh. Bhag Chand, Village Glole, PO

Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, Solan (HP)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The Divisional Sig. & Telecom Engineer, Northern Railways

Ambala Cantt, Haryana

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

Sh. Vijay Mangla

For the Management :

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

Passed on 19.2.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

167/2002-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2002, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Sig. and Telecom Engg. (DSTE), Northern Railway,

Ambala Cantt in terminating the service of Sh. Roop

Das S/o Sh. Bhag Chand, Ex-Helper, Khalsi/Tele, is

just and legal? If not so what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

As per the claim statement the workman had been

charge-sheeted for remaining absent from duty from 22nd

May, 1993 till the date of charge-sheet i.e. 2nd November,

1993. In an inquiry the Inquiry Officer found the charge not

4766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

proved but the competent authority passed on order of his

termination from service. An appeal preferred by the

workman also failed. This termination was however set

aside on OA No. 652/HP of 1995 by Hon'ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh with the liberty to

the department to proceed afresh against the workman after

serving him the charge sheet, note of disagreement and

copies of documents relied upon and to proceed with the

inquiry after giving an opportunity to the workman. The

department after acting upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Tribunal again terminated the services of the workman vide

order dated February 24, 1999 and again the appeal of the

workman was rejected. Workman submitted a demand

notice challenging the order of termination. In reply thereto

the management however stated that in consideration of

appeal of the workman dated 28.2.2001 and CO's letter dated

June 4, 2001 the punishment of removal of service as already

passed against the workman was reduced to that of

compulsory retirement from service. According to the

workman even this order as passed is illegal and he is not

entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and

back wages.

The claim was contested by the department and it

was alleged that the present reference is without

jurisdiction and is not maintainable and it does not reflect

the real dispute. The reference is about the action of the

management in terminating the services of the workman

whereas the case of the management is that the Revisional

Authority after considering the family circumstances of

the petitioner and also taking a lenient view in the matter

reduced the punishment awarded by the disciplinary

authority and upheld by the appellate authority to the extent

of compulsory retirement from service.

From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the

termination of the workman is not in dispute now as the

said punishment has been converted to compulsory

retirement. It is important to note that way back in 2007 on

18.7.2007 the learned counsel for the workman also had

stated in the Court that the reference is not proper and he

will make a representation to get it modified but no further

steps in this regard seems to have been taken despite the

case remained pending for quite long time. The workman

died during the pendency of the case. His LRs were

substituted vide order dated 21.7.2010.

As stated above it is clear from the pleadings of the

parties that the termination of the workman (since deceased)

is no more in dispute 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.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1736.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSusftax MkjsDVj]

eSllZ ,ñdsñ,lñ bthfu;;jl ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufn"ZV vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 128@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

28-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@40@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1736.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 128/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shows in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Managing Dir., M/s AKS

Engineers & others and their workman which was received

by the Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/40/2010-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. 128/2011

Registered on 28.4.2011

Sh. Bhoop Singh S/o Sh. Prema, Village Diargi, PO Diargi,

Tehsil Sadar, Mandi (H.P.)

....Applicants

VERSUS

The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and

Contractors Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project,

Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla

Prof. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,

Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village Kayam,

PO Slapper, Tehsil, Sundernagar, Mandi

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

—

Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the

workman

For the Management

—

None for respondent

No. 1

Sh. H.R. Sharma for

respondent No. 2

AWARD

Passed on 7.5.2013

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4767

Vide Order No. L-42012/40/2010-IR(DU), dated

28.3.2011 the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

Act) has referred the aforesaid industrial disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

"Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS

Engineers and Contractors a contractor of NTPC

Koldam Hydroelectric Power Project, Bilaspur in

terminating the services of their workman Sh. Bhoop

Singh S/o Sh. Prema w.e.f. 14.1.2008 for his alleged

act of habitual absenteeism is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

Story in the claim statement is different from the

reference. The reference is about the termination of the

service of the workman on a charge of habitual absenteeism

while the claim statement is about retrenchment in violation

of Section 25G of the Act. It has been alleged that the

juniors were retained at the time of retrenchment of the

workman. Violation of Section 25H has also been alleged.

Dispute under reference has no mention in the claim

statement. Respondent No. 1 Managing Director M/s AKS

Engineers (in short AKS) failed to appear despite sufficient

notice hence case proceeded against him. Respondent

No. 2 Italian Thai Development Company (in short ITD)

contested the claim to say that the claimant has made out a

case for violation of provisions of retrencement, whereas it

is revealed from the record of the employer i.e. sub-

Contractor respondent No. 1 AKS that the workman had

been removed from the service after charge-sheeting and

holding a full-fledged inquiry on a charge of misconduct.

Hence the claimant has no case.

Despite several opportunities given to workman he

did not appear for evidence. From the claim statement itself

no dispute under reference is made out hence a 'No Dispute'

award is passed in the case. Reference is answered against

the workman. Let two hard copies of the award and one

soft copy be sent to the Central Government as per the

directions of the Central Government.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1737.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

759@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@07@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@65@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1737.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID No.

759/2005) of the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 17/07/2013.

[No. L-12012/65/2003-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SHRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 759/2005

Registered on 2.9.2005

Shri Satinder Pal Singh, H.No. 1368, Phase I, Ram Darbar,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office Punjab,

Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. R.P. Rana, Advocate.

For the Management

Shri B.B. Bagga, Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 21.6.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

65/2003-IR(B-II) Dated 18.7.2003, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Assistant General

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh in removing

Sh. Sat Pal Chauhan, Ex-Peon from service w.e.f.

29.5.2001 is just and legal? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?"

As per claim statement the workman was in the

service of management as a Peon for more than 25 years.

He could not attend the office w.e.f. 20.6.1998 due to

continuous treatment of mental disturbance in the family.

On 2.2.2001 has management charge-sheeted the workman

for his absence. The charge-sheet was however not

supplied to him till the inquiry proceedings. He was informed

by the Presenting Officer about the date fixed. The

Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer misrepresented to

4768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

him that the inquiry proceedings are mere formality and

nothing is going to happen against him and he need not to

engage any defence representative. The workman has

further stated that his signatures on the proceedings dated

1.3.2001 and 12.3.2001 were obtained on the basis of the

aforesaid misrepresentation and he was forced to admit

the contents of the charge-sheet and to make a request in

writing in respect of taking a lenient view. He was not

suppplied the inquiry report and the disciplinary authority

without giving him personal hearing passed the order of

removal from service in violation of principles of natural

justice. In the claim statement the workman has challenged

the fairness of the inquiry on the ground of denial of proper

opportunity of hearing and of not allowing him to engage

defence representative, and on the ground that no

documents including charge-sheet and alleged letters were

tendered during the inquiry nor the list of documents or of

witnesses was supplied to him. The workman has also

stated that he had been trying to join the duty from 1.7.1999

but he was not allowed to join. According to him the order

of removal from service is against the provisions of the Act

and he be reinstated with full back wages and continuous

service.

The claim was contested by the management and it

was stated that the workman during his service tenure

remained unauthorizedly absent for a total period of 1993

days as detailed in written statement. From 20.6.1998 he

remained continuously absent without any proper leave

application till the date of his termination from service on

29.5.2001. He preferred to remain absent even on loss of

pay and despite various communications sent to him under

registered/ordinary/post and telegram advising him to report

for duty. Charge-sheet dated 2.2.2001 was issued to him

and he attended the inquiry on the first date of hearing i.e.

1.3.2001 when he admitted to have received the charge-

sheet. On 1.3.2001 further inquiry proceedings were

adjourned on the request of workman to enable him to

engage defence representative. On the adjourned date

12.3.2001 he stated to the Inquiry Officer that he did not

want the services of defence representative. It was denied

that the Inquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer forced the

workman to admit the charge and assured him of taking

lenient view if he admits the charges. The admission of

charge was voluntary and unconditional. Not only the

workman had admitted the charges but he had given a

letter dated 12.3.2001 also containing the admission of

charge. It was also denied that the report of the Inquiry

Officer was not supplied to the workman. According to the

management the report had been sent on 13.3.2001 and the

workman had acknowledged its receipt on 16.3.2001. The

workman failed to make any representation against the

report. The disciplinary authority had issued the show

cause notice about the proposed punishment fixing the

date for personal hearing and he had appeared also for

personal hearing on 30.5.2001 before the disciplinary

authority and consequently final order dated 30.5.2001

imposing the punishment of removal from service was

passed by the disciplinary authority. According to the

management the inquiry proceedings were conducted

properly. Opportunity of hearing was provided to the

workman, inquiry proceedings were adjourned on the

request of workman to facilitate to bring the DR and since

the workman himself voluntarily and unconditionally had

admitted the charge of prolonged absence and did not

contest the case hence there was no necessity of any

evidence. The punishment order is perfectly justified in

view of the gravity of the misconduct.

From the claim statement it is clear that the workman

has challenged the fairness of the inquiry and the case had

been fixed for hearing on the fairness of inquiry but when

the inquiry record was produced by the management on

the order of the Court the learned counsel for workman did

not press the point of fairness of inquiry on 13.10.2011 and

submitted that the punishment awarded to the workman is

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The parties'

counsel then stated that no evidence is to be adduced and

case be fixed for arguments on merits. The case was therefore

fixed for arguments. Learned counsel for workman made

oral submissions. The management however submitted

written arguments. I consider the oral submissions of the

learned counsel for workman and perused the written

arguments of the management and also the record

produced by the management.

A perusal of the record file filed by the management

shows that it is not the complete record of inquiry. It appears

the personal file of the workman having certain papers

concerning the inquiry has been filed, charge-sheet is not

available on the record but the inquiry proceedings paper

Nos. 33 to 37 had been filed which shows that the workman

had attended the inquiry proceedings on 1st March, 2001

and on 12.3.2001. On 1.3.2001 he had admitted to have

received and read the charge-sheet and to have understood

its contents. On being asked by Inquiry Officer whether he

pleads guilty or not to the charge the workman had replied

that he had asked his union to defend his case and it named

on Amrit Lal the General Secretary of Union as his defence

representative and as the above named defence

representative was not able to attend the proceedings that

day he had requested for adjournment. Consequently the

proceedings were adjourned to 12.3.2001. On 12.3.2001 no

defence representative appeared and the workman had

stated to plead his case himself. On being asked by the

Inquiry Officer he voluntarily and unconditionally admitted

all the allegations and charges held against him. He gave a

letter dated 12.3.2001 also. A copy of the letter dtd.12.3.2001

is paper No. 32 in which the workman has stated that he

admits the allegations of the charge-sheet unconditionally

and without any pressure. It is important to note that the

workman in his claim statement has admitted to have

attended the proceedings on 1.3.2001 and 12.3.2001 and to

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4769

have signed the proceedings and written the letter admitting

the charges but his case is that his signature on the

proceedings and his admission of the charges was obtained

by the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on the

assurance that a lenient view will be taken in this case but

there is no evidence even the affidavit of workman himself

in support of the allegations. Therefore there is no reason

to disbelieve the facts mentioned in the inquiry report. As

stated above the fairness of the inquiry had not been

pressed by the counsel for the workman also. Hence the

question of fairness of inquiry need not be probed further.

Inquiry was fair and proper.

The learned counsel for workman however vehemently

argued that the workman has 25 years' service to his credit

and there is no allegation of embezzlement etc., merely on the

charge of unauthorized absence, the punishment of removal

from service is disproportionate and harsh and therefore

lenient view be taken regarding the punishement.

Learned counsel for management has argued that

considering the gravity of the charge of serious misconduct

by remaining absent for abnormally long period of about

3 years despite many letters written to him to report for

duty, the workman does not deserver any leniency.

I have considered the submissions of the parties.

The absence of workman from duty is not natural or normal.

He remained absent from duty from 20.6.1998 to the date of

punishment order dated 23.5.2001 (paper No. 42). Thus he

remained absent from duty for about 3 years continuously.

In a Country having great unemployment, no organization

or institution can afford to bear the burden of an employee

who has no devotion and sincerity for his duties. I do not

find any justification for interfering in the action of the

management. I am therefore of the view that the action of the

management in removing the workman from service w.e.f.

30.5.2001 is just and legal. The workman is not entitled to

any relief. Let hard copy and the soft copy of the award be

sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1738.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ+ cM+kSnk ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] i.kth ¼xksok½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k vkbZ Vh@23@99½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&1203@259@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1738.—In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. IT/23/99) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Panaji now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of Bank of

Baroda and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 18.07.2013.

[No. L-12012/259/97-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(BEFORE SMT. BIMBA K. THALY, PRESIDING

OFFICER)

Ref. No. IT/23/99

Shri J.T. Shetye rep. by

The Vice President,

Bank of Baroda,

Employees' Congress D-14,

Housing Board Colony,

Near St. Xavier College,

Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.

... Workman/Party I

V/s

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office Goa Region,

4th Floor, Plaza Chambers,

Dr. A.B. Road,

Panaji, Goa

... Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri. V.

Menezes.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P.J. Kamat.

AWARD

(Passed on this 13th day of June, 2013)

In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub

section (1) of section (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act

(Central Act 14 of 1947) (for short the Act) the Central

Government by order, dated 16/2/99, referred the following

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda to impose the punishment of withdrawal of

special allowance for a further period of five years

and warning upon Shri J.T. Shetye vide order dated 12/

1/96 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the

workman entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was registered

under No. IT/23/1999 and registered A.D. notices were

issued to both the parties. Accordingly, both the parties

appeared before the Court. Party I filed the claim statement

at Exb. 3 and Party II filed the written statement at Exb. 4.

Party I then filed the rejoinder at Exb. 5.

3. It is in short the case of Party I that he has been

employed with Party II who is engaged in the business of

banking through its various branches. That the present

reference relates to the punishment awarded to Party I by

order dated 12/1/96 and it is raised espoused by the Bank

4770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of Baroda Employees Congress (Goa). It is stated that Party I

at the relevant time was employed at the Aldona Branch of

Party II as Head Cashier "C" and that his past record is

clean, unblemished and meritorious. That at that time he

was issued a charge sheet dated 4/4/94 by the Regional

Manager (Goa) of the employer alleging certain charges of

misconduct against him and he was charged of misconduct

in terms of Bipartite Settlement signed between the

employer and employees union such as (a) doing an act of

indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank (clause

19.5 (c); (b) doing an act of insubordination/disobedience

of lawful/reasonable orders of management (clause 19.5

(e); (c) doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

involving the bank in various loss (clause 19.5 (j); (d) doing

an act of breach of rule of business of the bank (clause

19.7(d) and (e) and doing an act of failing to show proper

consideration, courtesy or attention towards officer,

customers and employees of the Bank, unseamingly/

unsatisfactory behaviour while on duty (clause 19.7 (j). It

is stated that charges leveled against Party I are false and

baseless. It is further the case of Party I that a domestic

enquiry was held and that he was placed under suspension

before issuance of the charge sheet. That the Enquiry

Officer gave the report holding that the allegations at sr.

no. (c) and (d) are not proved but that all the charges of

misconduct are proved against Party I. The Regional

Manager (Goa) of Party II then issued notice dated 27/11/

95 proposing punishment of "withdrawal of special

allowance for further five years" for charges at sr.no. (a) to

(d) of the charge sheet and "warning" for the charge at sr.

no. (e) therein and he fixed a hearing to afford opportunity

to Party I to show cause against the proposed punishment.

Party I filed reply dated 21/12/95 to the show cause notice

and thereafter the Regional Manager (Goa) of Party II

passed the order dated 21/1/96. By virtue of this order, the

Party I, was reinstated in service with effect from the date

of service of order on him. The union then raised an

Industrial Dispute in the matter of punishment awarded to

Party I and accordingly the dispute was referred to the

Industrial Tribunal for adjudication but as the actual

dispute was not referred the Party I filed petition before the

Hon'ble High of Bombay at Panaji, Goa for direction to the

Government to make a correct reference and accordingly

the Central Government referred the dispute between the

parties, as mentioned supra.

4. It is stated by Party I that the action of Party II is

bad in law, illegal and unjustified; that the action of Regional

Manager of Party II of awarding penalties to Party I is

without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction; that

Party I has been punished without any reasonable cause;

that the charges of misconduct alleged against Party I are

false and baseless; that the charge sheet has been issued

without application of mind; that the charges alleged are

without substance; that the Enquiry Officer was biased in

favour of the management; that the enquiry was conducted

in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and

no adequate opportunity was given to Party I to defend

himself; that the enquiry was conducted in breach of the

rules and procedure applicable to Party I; that the findings

of Enquiry Officer are not based on evidence on record

and are perverse; that Party I has been punished for his

trade union activities; that the charges of misconduct are

not proved on the evidence on record and even assuming

without admitting that the charges of misconduct are

proved, the punishment awarded to Party I is too harsh

and severe. It is thus stated by Party I that he is entitled to

an award declaring that the punishment of withdrawal of

special allowance for further five years and warning awarded

to him is illegal and unjustified and that the management of

Party II be directed to restore the said allowance to him and

to pay him all arrears arising there from so also quash the

order of punishment and direct the management of Party II

to place him at the appropriate stage in the pay scale with

effect from the date of orders of punishments.

5. In the written statement the defence of Party II in

short is that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted

against Party I for the acts of misconduct and by order

dated 4/4/94-Mr. A.V. Kale, Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office, Pune was appointed as an Enquiry Officer

and Mr. R.S. Doiphode, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional

Office, Pune was appointed as Presenting Officer by order

dated 4/4/94. That the enquiry commenced on 6/5/94 and

concluded on 15/9/95. Party I fully participated in the

enquiry proceedings in person as well as through Mr. T.H.

Naidu, General Secretary, F.O.B.O. & E.C. (Mah. & Goa) of

which the Party I was a member. That the Enquiry Officer

submitted his findings dated 19/5/95 holding Party I guilty

of the allegations at sr. nos. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) part and (f)

of the charge sheet and consequently the Enquiry Officer

held that all the misconduct (a) to (e) under the Bipartite

Settlement are proved against he Party I, thereafter copy of

findings of the Enquiry Officer was submitted to Party I

and he was called upon to make his submissions/

representation within fifteen days of the receipt of the same.

However Party I prayed for further time which was granted

to him and filed his submissions/representations but the

disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer on the charges proved against the workman

and accordingly suggested the punishment. Party I was

given opportunity to show cause against the punishment

as well as to attend the personal hearing and thereafter the

punishment proposed in the show cause notice dated 27/

11/95 was awarded vide order dated 12/1/96. Party I

preferred appeal against the said order dtd.12/1/96 before

the appellate authority but the appeal came to be dismissed.

It is stated that the misconducts committed and proved

against Party I are major misconducts which deserve

punishment of dismissal from the services but Party II took

a lenient view and awarded lower punishment in the interest

of justice. It is also stated that the action of Party II is just,

legal and bonafide and no interference is called for.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4771

6. On the basis of above pleadings of both the parties

the following issues were framed at Exb. 6 :—

(1) Whether the Party I proves that the enquiry held

against him is not fair, proper and impartial?

(2) Whether the charges of misconduct leveled against

the party I are proved to the satisfaction of the

Tribunal by acceptable evidence?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that the action of the Party

II to impose punishment of withdrawal of special

allowance for a further period of five years and warning

against the Party I by order dated 12/1/96 is malafide,

illegal and unjustified?

(4) Whether Party I is entitled to any relief?

(5) What award?

7. Issue nos. 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary

issues and by order dated 8/6/12 issue no. 1 was answered

in the negative and the issue no. 2 in the affirmative.

8. Records reveal that matter was then fixed for

evidence on issue nos. 3, 4 and 5. In the course of evidence

on these issues workman Shri J.T. Shetye examined himself

and closed his case. Ld. advocate for Party II did not lead

evidence on these issues.

9. Heard Ld. advocate Shri V. Menezes for Party I

and Ld. Adv. Shri P.J. Kamat for Party II.

10.In his arguments Ld. advocate for Party I by

inviting my attention to the Bipartite Settlement, the nature

of misconducts and the punishments prescribed under it

viz. a viz the order dated 8/6/12 passed by this court on the

preliminary issues stated that vide this order the court has

come to the conclusion that Party I is guilty of the charges

at (a), (b), (c) and (e) part, levelled against him in the charge

sheet dated 4/4/94 constituting misconducts under clause

19.5(c) and 19.7(d) of the Bipartite Settlement. Thus

according to him all the misconducts allegedly proved

against the workman are to be treated as minor misconducts,

considering the nature of punishment prescribed for these

misconducts. He also stated that there has been

victimization of the workman at the end of the management

and that the punishment meted out to him is connected

with the victimization. Further he stated that the past record

of the workman is clean, unblemished and meritorious and

that these aspects deserve to be considered for interfering

with the punishment imposed upon the workman.

According to him, all the misconducts allegedly proved

against the workman are to be fitted under clause 19.7 of

the Bipartite Settlement as they are minor misconducts and

therefore the punishment imposed has to be under Clause

19.8 of the Bipartite Settlement. By inviting my attention to

the order dated 12/1/96 issued by the Regional Manager of

Party II he stated that no reasons have been assigned in

the same for imposing punishment of withdrawing special

allowances drawn by the workman for further five years.

11.On the other hand learned advocate for Party II

submitted that since the punishment imposed upon the

workman is not of either discharge or dismissal, this court

cannot, in terms of Section 11-A of the I.D. Act interfere

with the punishment imposed upon the workman. In

support of his above submissions he relied on the judgment

in the case of General Secretary, South Indian Cashew

Factories Workers' Union V/s Managing Dir., Kerala State

Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., & Ors 2006 II CLR

959, the relevant extract in which reads as under:

"If enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any

allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, the

labour court has no power to interfere with the punishment

imposed. Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the

Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the

enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the

employer in imposing punishment. Section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of

dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned

in the Section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11-A

in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., V. Their Workmen (1958)

SCR 667 this Court held that the Tribunal does not act as a

court of appeal and substitute its own judgement for that

of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only

when there is want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour

practice etc. on the part of the management."

12.Learned advocate for Party II further submitted

that, though in his affidavit in evidence Party I has stated

that charge sheet dated 4/4/94 was issued only to 'victimize'

him as he had in the past brought to the notice of the

management the irregularities which had been taking place

in the Aldona Branch and also because he had joined

INTUC Union and not any other union sponsored by the

bank, no such averment is found made in the pleadings in

the statement of claim and therefore the plea of victimization

at the end of management, taken by the workman, cannot

be considered. By inviting my attention to the pleadings in

para 16(j) of the claim statement he stated that though it is

pleaded that the workman has been punished for his trade

union activities as well as for non existent reasons, nothing

specific about 'victimization' has been pleaded in this para

and therefore it would not be justified to say that the plea

of victimization is taken in the claim statement. He relied on

the judgment in the case of Regional Manager, SBI V/s

Rakesh Kumar Tewari 2006 I CLR 395 in which it is observed

that if the plea is not put forward such an opportunity is

denied, quite apart from the principle that no amount of

evidence can be looked into unless a plea is raised. He

therefore contended that in such situation observations in

the judgment in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories

(Supra) squarely attract to the instant case.

13.In the above context, it is the submission of learned

advocate of Party I that the letters written by the workman

and which form the part of the enquiry proceedings at

Exb.E-1 colly clearly speak about the victimization of the

4772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

workman at the end of the management and merely because

the specific word "victimization" is not used in the

pleadings, the same would not mean that such a plea is not

taken in the claim statement.

14.It may be mentioned here that the party taking the

plea of victimization has to specifically plead and prove

the same. Reliance in this context is placed on the judgment

in the cae of M/s. Bharat Iron Works v/s. Bhagubhai

Balubhai Patel and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 98 to highlight the

meaning and effect of the term "victimization" and it is

observed in this judgment as under:

".....It is apparent that victimization may pertake of

various types, to cite one or two only for example

pressuring an employee to leave the union or union

activities, treating an employee unequal or in an

obvisously discriminatory manner for the sole reason

of his connection with union or his particular union

activity; inflicting a grossly monstrous punishment

which no rational person would impose on an

employee or the like.

A word of caution is necessary. Victimization is a

serious charge by an employee against an employer,

and, therefore, it must be properly and adequately

pleaded by giving all particulars upon which the

charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet

them. The charge must not be vague or indefinite

being as it is an amalgam of facts as well as inferences

and attitudes. The fact that there is a union espousing

the cause of the employees in legitimate trade union

activity and an employee is a member or active office

bearer thereof is per se, no crucial instance. Collective

bargaining being the order of the day in a democratic

social welfare state, legitimate trade union activity

which must shun all kinds of physical thereats,

coercion or violence, must march with a spirit of

tolerance, understanding and grace in dealings on

the part of the employer..."

It is further observed in this judgment as under:

".....The onus of establishing a plea of victimization

will be upon the person pleading it. Since a charge of

victimization is a serious matter reflecting, to a degree,

upon the subjective attitude of the employer

evidenced by acts and conduct, these have to be

established by safe and sure evidence. Mere

allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations are

not enough. All particulars of the charge brought

out, if believed, must be weighed by the Tribunal

and a conclusion should be reached on a totality of

the evidence produced....."

15.Since the pleadings on the subject of

"victimization", as required in the above manner are lacking

in the claim statement, the question of looking into the

affidavit in evidence of the workman on the above subject,

for holding that such a plea has been taken by the workman

in the claim statement, does not arise. The fact therefore

remains is that there are no pleadings of victimization or

unfair labour practice by the workman and in such situation

the question of this court adverting to Section 11-A of I.D.

Act to interfere with the punishment imposed, does not

arise.

16.This being the situation, it would not be proper,

justified and in the interest of justice to hold that the action

of Party II of imposing punishment of withdrawal of special

allowance for a further period of five years and warning

against Party I by order dated 12/1/96 is malafide, illegal

and unjustified. Hence my findings.

17.Issue no. 4: In view of findings on issue no. 3

above, Party I is not entitled to any relief.

18.In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER

It is hereby held that the action of the management

of Bank of Baroda to impose the punishment of

withdrawal of special allowance for a further period

of five years and warning upon Sh. J.T. Shetye vide

order dated 12.1.96 is legal and justified.

No order as to costs. Inform the Government

accordingly.

B.K. THALY, Presiding Officer

Place: Panaji

Dated: 13/6/2013

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1739.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,lbZlh,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k vkbZ Vh@247@1998½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@412@1997&vkbZvkjñ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award Ref. No. 247/1998 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of SECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

19.07.2013.

[No. L-22012/412/1997-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4773

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/247/98

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATIL

The Deputy Chief Secretary,

Indian National Mines Overman,

Sirdar and Shot Firer's Assn.,

SECL, Ravinagar Colony,

Threemar colliery,

Shahdol

Workman/Union

Versus

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Hq.),

Bilaspur (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 10-11-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

412/97/IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the 6 demands given in annexure raised

by the Indian National Mines Overman, Sirdar and

shot-Firer's Association (Known as INMOSSA) are

justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen

concerned entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Union filed statement of claim at page 4/1 to 4/8.

Ist party submits that service conditions of all workman

including Mining Supervisory Personnel are governed by

provisions in Standing Orders. That Indian National Mines

Overman, Sirdar and Shot firers Association (INMOSSA)

is a registered Trade union. Union has Area Officers and

Branch offices in all the areas/units of each subsidiary

including SECL. The promotional avenues of Mining

supervisory Personnel is to be guided by recommendation

of the report. Said committee was constituted by Coal India.

The recommendations of said committee is with regard to

promotion of Mining Sirdar to post of Safety Cum

Production Assistant, Overman, Senior Overman etc. was

faithfully implemented. That payment of wage allowance

to overman, Mining Sirdar of all opencast Mines. The

charge handing and taking over allowance was introduced

in Coal India since 1978. It was applicable to all mining

supervisory personnel holding Mining Sirdarship

Certificate, Overmanship certificate and shot firer's

certificate. That as to demand No. 3 for training to Mining

Sirdar as overman about solid blasting is essential. That

fixation of the blasting holes, there are three types of mines

i.e. Degree I, II & III. Degree I Mine-Maximum limit is 100

detonators per shift, Degree II/III mine, maximum limit is 80

detonators per shift. Giving other details of working hours,

Union submits that all demands of Mining supervisory

Personnel be extended as per R.N. Mishra Committee

Report.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/

4. It is submitted that the Staffing pattern for mining

personnel was approved in 1991 applicable to Coal India

as a whole. The submissions of Association about R.N.

Mishra Committee is clarified that said report was

recommendatory and not obligatory for management as Ist

party wrongly alleged about it. It is denied that said

committee was constituted by CIL for Coal India Ltd. It is

further submitted that permission of mining sirdar to

production from safety assistant and overman is subject

to availability of sanctioned vacancies as per staffing

pattern. The promotion is based on vacancies. IInd party

further submits that number of post operated in T&S Grade

D as Production cum Safety Assistant would be 15% of

total strength, in Grade A would be 15% and Grade C-150

posts in T&S Grade B and 23 posts will be operated in T&S

Gr. A.

4. It is further submitted that Mining Sirdar engaged

in OCM are not entitled to receive charge allowance. The

payment of charge allowance is subject to actual charge

handed over and taken over in mine in a particular section.

That solid blasting is not a new technique in the mine. It

had been in use for more than 3 decades. Therefore Mining

Supervisor personnel who acquires certificate of

competency examination as Mining Sirdar or Overman

should have the knowledge of 3rd requisite for the post.

That the claim of Ist party is based on presumption. On

such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim under

reference.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the 6 demands given

In Negative

in Annexure raised by the

Indian, National Mines

Overman Sirdar and shot-

Firer's Association (Known as

INMOSSA) are legal and justified?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

6. Though dispute under reference relates to

6 demands of the Union as given in detail in statement of

claim, Union/Association has not adduced any evidence.

The Association failed to submit evidence and evidence of

Union was closed on 28-2-2011.

4774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

7. Witness of management R.B.P. Sahi filed affidavit

of his evidence giving details of staffing pattern and number

of posts to be operated in T&S Grade-A, B & C. The staffing

pattern for mining personnel is circulated by CIL in 1991. It

is uniformly applicable to Coal India as a whole. That the

report of R.N. Mishra Committee was recommended and

obligatory on the management. However as a gesture of

goodwill, request of INMOSSA was accepted and payment

of charge allowance to Mining Sirdar Personnels working

in OCM was started. Circular dated 30-11-98 and 18-01-99

issued by the management that solid blasting is old

technique used more than 3 decades. Knowledge of solid

blasting is essential for candidates for examination being

conducted by the DGMS for Mining sirdars and overman.

The evidence of management witness remained

unchalleged. Union failed to participate in reference

proceeding. Considering the unchalleged evidence of

management's witness, no evidence adduced by Union to

substantiate its demands. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Negative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) All the 6 demands of Union/Association are

rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1740.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 298@1999½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@130@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 298/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/130/1999-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/298/1999

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Secretary,

R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC),

PO Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 31-8/8-9-99 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

130/99-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Chandametta Colliery,

PO Chandametta, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not

correcting the date of birth of Shri Salim Khan S/o

Ahmad Khan, Elect. Fitter Helper is justified? If not,

to what relief he workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party failed to file Statement of Claim. Ist

party workman is proceeded exparte on 9-7-09.

3. The management of IInd party filed Written

Statement. It is submitted by management that workman

was initially appointed as General Mazdoor w.e.f. 20-3-73.

He was promoted to post of Fitter Helper/Trammer and

posted at Chandametta Colliery for WCL, Pench Area. As

per provisions of Mines Act, statutory registers are required

to be maintained. The personal numbers of all employees

are mentioned in registers. The photo of employee is to be

affixed in Form B register. The entries on said register is

based on information furnished by workman. Union raised

issues regarding correction of date of birth of employees.

As per Instruction No. 37 and 76, it deserves to be in order.

That Instruction No. 76 also provides for the review and

determination of date of birth of existing employees. The

decision of Age Determination Committee is final and

binding. IInd party request for rejection of claim of Ist party

workman.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4775

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

Chandametta Colliery, PO

Chandametta, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) in not

correcting the date of birth

of Shri Salim Khan S/o Ahmad

Khan, Elect. Fitter Helper is

justified?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

5. As stated above, though terms of dispute under

reference relates to IInd party not correcting date of birth

of workman Shri Salim Khan, no statement of claim is filed

to substantiate the claim under reference. No evidence is

adduced in support of the claim. Workman has not

participated in reference proceeding.

6. The witness of management Shri M.B. Kumbhare

filed affidavit of evidence supporting contentions of the

management of IInd party. The case of workman was

referred to Age Determination Committee. The workman

could not produce any document or evidence in support

of his claim. The Committee had confirmed date of birth of

workman was 1-7-1941. The evidence of management's

witness remained unchallanged as the workman failed to

cross-examine him. I do not find reasons to disbelieve his

evidence. For above reasons, the action of IInd party

cannot be said illegal. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

The action of the management of W.C.L.,

Chandametta Colliery, PO Chandametta, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) in not correcting the date of birth

of Shri Salim Khan S/o Ahmad Khan, Elect. Fitter

Helper is legal.

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1741.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh

vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2000½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@384@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2000)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of FCI, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/384/1999-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/2000

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Nagraj Sonkar,

House No. 40/424,

Sonkarpara, Purani Basti,

Raipur

....Workman

Versus

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India

District Office,

Kutchery Chowk,

Raipur (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July 2013

As per letter dated 29-2/7-3/2000 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

384/99-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Nagraj Sonkar claiming himself to be

a peon for providing water etc. is a workman under

Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947? If so, whether his

termination by the management of FCI w.e.f. 5-3-99 is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed his statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/3. The workman submits that he was

appointed by IInd party as peon to provide drinking water

on 9-4-96. His services were orally discontinued from 5-3-99

without notice. He further submits that he had completed

240 days continuous service as provided in Section 25-B

of I.D. Act. He was not given one month notice or pay in

lieu of one month notice. That he was required to work as

waterman as sprinkling water on Khas Patti, he was paid

Rs. 1400 per month. Monetary provisions of Section 25-F

were not followed while terminating his services. He was

not paid retrenchment compensation. The provision of

4776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Section 25-G, H were not followed. As such termination of

his services is illegal. He prays for reinstatement with

consquential benefits.

3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 5/1/

to 5/3. He denied that workman was appointed as peon. It

is denied that he worked continuously for more thant 240

days as provided under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. According

to IInd party, workman was engaged on daily wages for

sprinkling water on Khas patti during summer days. His

name was received from office of Collector. He had

completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was

engaged for about 2 months. He was also subsequently

engaged for same period. Wages were paid for it. The

services of workman were engaged by sprinkling water on

Khas patti during summer. It is denied that he was paid

Rs. 1400 per month. All other contentions of workman are

denied. It is submitted that the services of workman were

terminated after summer days. His service were not

terminated. It was not necessary to pay retrenchment

compensation. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/2. He

reiterates his carrier contention in Statement of Claim. He

submits that his services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act and prays for reinstatement.

5. Considering pleadings onrecord, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether Shri Nagraj Sonkar

claiming himself to be a peon

for providing water etc. is a

In affirmative

workman under Section 2(s)

of the I.D. Act, 1947?

(ii)

Whether the termination

of workman by the management

In affirmative

of FCI w.e.f. 5-3-99 is legal?

(iii)

If so, to what relief the workman Relief prayed by

is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

6. As per terms of reference, the parties are in dispute

whether the Ist party is a workman under Section 2(s) of

I.D. Act. As per the pleadings of parties, workman was

engated for sprinkling water on Khas Patti during summer

days. Whereas workman says that he was appointed as

peon against vacant post. Pleadings of the parties are silent

that the workman was appointed on supervisory or

managerial post paying salary above Rs. 1600 per month.

The definition of workman under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act is

reproduced for convenience:—

"workman means any person 9 including as

apprentice) employed in any indsutry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this is in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge of retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but doesnot include any such person—

(i)

Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 or the

Army Act, 1950 etc."

7. Workman filed affidavit of evidence at page 15/1

to 15/2. Workman was not cross-examined. Management

filed evidence of his witness Shri Isak Tirki. His evidence

also remains unchallenged. Looking to the evidence or

record and pleadings of both parties, I held that Ist party

workman is covered as workman under Section 2(s) of I.D.

Act. Therefore I answer Issue No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. Issue No.—Termination of workman is challenged.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence contending that he

had completed 240 days continuous service. He was

working continuously as peon from 9-4-96 to 5-3-99. He

was working as waterman. The payment was not for specific

purpose. Workman was not cross-examined. Management's

witness also not cross-examined. Workman remained

absent and failed to participate in the reference proceeding.

As workman was not examined, his evidence cannot be

accepted. The evidence of management's witness remained

unchallenged and I find no reason to disbelieve his

evidence. Workman has failed to establish that he was

continuously working for 240 days preceding his date of

termination and therefore compliance of section 25-F of

I.D. Act is not necessary. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.

9. As a result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

Ist party Shri Nagraj Sonkar is covered as a workman

in I.D. Act.

(2)

Termination of workman by the management of FCI

w.e.f. 5-3-99 is proper.

(3)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1742.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 197@1998½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4777

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@138@1997&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 to 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 197/

1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial dispute between the management of WCL, and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/138/1997-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/197/98

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Vice President,

Pench Kanhan Koyla Khadan

Karmchari Sangh,

Post Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Workman/Union

Versus

Dy. C.M.E.,

Tandsi Project, WCL,

Post Rampur, Via Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of June, 2013

1. As per letter dated 20-8-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

138/97/IR (C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Tandsi

Project of WCL, Kanhan Area PO Rampur Via Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in refusing to regularize their

own employees Shri Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 others

when they are employed for last about more than

two years and terminating the stoppage of work w.e.f.

27-12-95 without complying with the Section 25(F)

of the Industrial Dispute Act is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted Statement of Claim

at Page 7 to 29. The case of the Ist party is that the contract

under CL (R&A) Act was arrived between IInd party and

contractor M/s. Shakti Kumar M. Sancheti, Nagpur for

cutting and driving the Stone Drifts No. 3 & 4 of the Tandsi

Project. That Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 other were employed

by the said contractor on the work of cutting stone. The

stone drift/mines were driven from Surface to coal seam in

1000 meters of depth into earth during the period 1-1-94 to

31-12-95. The contractor was paying less wages than the

employee directly employed by WCL. That as per letter

dated 20-9-95 under Section 22(1) of I.D. Act submitted to

the Manager, WCL and other officers, copy was addressed

to ALC; Chhindwara and other authorities. There was

settlement between the contractor and those employees

on 31-11-95. It was agreed that the contractor would pay

wages as per NCWA. Form B registers were checked by

representative and found correct. The employment card of

employees had been issued to the concerned workman.

Attendance of employees in respective forms were to be

checked and verified within 15 days from the date of

settlement.

3. That as per agreement, wages were paid in different

scale of wages as per NCWA and linked to AICPI Index but

they were illegally terminated and thrown out of service.

4. It is submitted that CL (R&A) Act prohibits

employment of contract labours. That notification was

issued by Government of India dated 5-2-75 prohibiting

employment of contract labours by raising-cum-selling of

coal, coal loading and unloading, overburden removal and

earth cutting,soft coke manufacturing, driving of stone

drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground. The

said notification was amended on 21-6-88. The employment

of contract labours was prohibited in the coal mines in

above areas of the work. The notification provided for

exemption of quarries located by the side of Pench river

etc. The Union further submits that once the question of

requirement is considered and recommendation for abolition

was accepted by the appropriate Government, the matter

cannot be taken for reconsideration. Union has referred to

ratio held in different cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The Union further submits that management of

IInd party admitted before Conciliation Officer that driving

of stone drifts is to be undertaken for purpose of winning

coal and raising it which is found under the stone strata or

seam. The work of WCL is not a mining of stone but has to

make arrangement for mining of coal by removing the

obstacles created by any such stone seam. The Union

further referred judgments/ratio held by the Supreme Court

in different cases. That the contract of work process and

operation of driving of stone drift in incline No. 3-4 of

Tandsi Project of WCL is sham and therefore the contract

labour, Shri Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 others employed in

Tandsi Project are entitled to absorption by the WCL. Union

further submits that management violated Section 25-F of

4778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

I.D. Act. The management of WCL is deemed employer. It

is also alleged that their retrenchment is violative of Article

14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. That in case

contractor fails to make payment of wages to contract

labours, Principal Employer is responsible to pay wages

full and final. The difference of wages between NCWA-IV

and NCWA-V is due for the period of employment. On

such grounds, Union submits that labours employed by

contractor are entitled to reinstatement and treated as

regular employees of WCL.

6. Management of IInd party filed Written Statement

at Page 91/1 to 91/20. IInd party submits that the order of

reference speaks about termination and stoppage of work

w.e.f. 27-12-95 in respect of claimant Shri Amar Kumar Dixit

and 74 others. The present dispute raised after 3 years is

belated. It is not tenable. The terms of reference are illegal

as appropriate Government has gone into disputed

questions of fact while making the reference. It is beyond

scope of the Tribunal. The reference is liable to be rejected.

The order of reference shows that Government has decided

that there existed employer employee relationship prior to

the termination. The claimants were never employed by

WCL. There was not stoppage of work from 27-12-95. The

claimants were not in employment of WCL. There is no

question of retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act. The reference is not legal.

7. Management submitted representation to the

Secretary, Ministry of Coal for cancellation or modification

of reference. Vide letter dated 3-2-2000, Ministry expresed

its inability to make any amendment in the reference. The

management had submitted application dated 25-8-2000

before this Tribunal whether the terms of reference are

legal and justified. That the Court can pass order holding

the reference illegal. It is further submitted that the Union

has no locus-standi to raise the dispute as it had no

followers. The terms of reference have not been properly

drawn up and therefore the order of reference is vitiated.

That shri P.K. Bannerjee, General Secretary of SKMS Union

had raised the dispute claiming services of 350 contract

labours and said dispute was referred vide order No.L-

22012/40/97 dated 24-4-98 (R/83/98). That the employees

covered under present reference are also claimants in the

said reference, the reference is not tenable.

8. Union claimed that Amar Kumar Disxit and

74 employees were in employment of contractor M/s. Shakti

Kumar M. Sancheti for work of cutting and driving Stone

Drifts No. 3 & 4 of the Tandsi Project of Kanhan Area. The

said stone drifts/mines were driven from the surface upto

coal seam in 1000 meters of depth into earth. That Coal

India is a company registered under the Indian Companies

Act. The wage structure and other benefits of Coal India

are covered by recommendations of central Wage Board

for Coal Mining Industry. The service conditions and wage

structure is revised time to time jointly known as NCWA.

That appointments in CIL are governed by statutory rules

and regulations. The persons seeking employment have to

undergo the process prescribed. That names are required

to be sponsored through Employment Exchange. It is further

submitted that the public employment is guaranted under

Article 16 of constitution. If the contractors workers are

regularized, the right of the public employment would be

violated. It is further submitted that mines are governed by

Mines Act and Regulations. That under the Mines Act, it

is mandatory to maintain Form B,C,D of Coal Mines,

Provident Fund Scheme, contributions are deducted.

9. That management issued tender notice No. 1 of

93-94 dated 2-4-93 for execution of work of Drivage of

Incline No. 3 & 4 of Tandsi Project. The details of work are

given. The length of Incline No. 3 is 964 meters, incline No.

4 is 963 meters. The time limit for completion of work was 32

months. Contract was awarded to M/s. Shakti Kumar M.

Sancheti for amount of Rs. 10,18,43,000/- . The contractor

was issued letter of indent on 5-11-93. The agreement was

executed on 8-2-94. Completion certificate was issued by

management on 23-3-96. That notification issued on

21-6-88 by Govt. of India prohibits driving of stone drift in

underground doesnot specifically or even by implication

prohibits driving of stone drifts on surface. By said

notification, driving of stone drifts underground which

could not be detected has been permitted. That work of

driving stone drift is of temporary nature and is to be

undertaken for the purpose of winning of Coal and raising,

which is found under the stone strata or seam and thus the

work of WCL is not a mining of stone. It is preparatory

work for mining of coal given to the contractor.

10. That contractor M/s. Shakti Kumar M. Sancheti

was holding valid licence for engaging 95 contract labours.

The licence No. 820/93 dated 31-12-93 was renewed till

31-12-95. The settlement between contractor and the

representative of Union is not disputed. The other

contention of the Union are denied. It is denied that

contractor was not awarded contract under provisions of

CL (R&A) Act. The contract was awarded for purpose of

execution of work. The labours were engaged by the

contractor. It is duty of contractor to maintain various

registers by respect of labours engaged by him. After

execution of agreement, work order was issued on 8-2-94.

The particulars of labours engaged by contractor, the

charges paid to them were required to be maintained by the

contractor himself. That provision of NCWA are applicable

to regular employees of WCL and not applicable to the

labours engaged by contractor. It is reiterated that work of

driving stone of temporary nature was under taken for

purpose of raising coal and selling it. Management never

executed work prohibited under CL(R&A) Act through

contract labours. The work of drivage of incline 3, 4 awarded

to M/s. Shakti Kumar M.Sancheti is not of prohibited

category. Tenders were invited. Successful contractors were

issued work order. Agreement was executed between

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4779

contractor and management. The contractor produced

labour licence. The claimants are not entitled for absorption

in WCL.

11. That IInd party further submits that claimants

were not engaged by management of WCL, they were

engaged by contractor. Their services were not terminated

by WCL management in violation of section 25(F) of I.D.

Act. Violation of Article 14,15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution

of India is denied. It is contended that relationship of master

and servant exists between contractor and labours engaged

by him. There is no such relationship with the Principal

Employer. The recruitment was not made in compliance of

the statutory rules and procedure prescribed for

appointments in WCL. That the labours engaged by

contractor are not entitled to automatic absorption under

CL(R&A) Act. On such grounds, IInd party prays for

rejection of claim of the Union.

12. Rejoinder is filed by Union reiterating its earlier

pleadings and prays for reinstatement in service of Shri

Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 others.

13. Considering pleading on record, the points which

arise for my consideraiton and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

Shri Amar Kumar

management of Tandsi

Dixit and 74 others

Proejct of WCL Kanhan

were engaged by

Area Po Rampur Via Damua,

contractors. Their

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

services are

refusing to regularize

terminated by

their own employees

contractor and not

Shri Amar Kumar Dixit

by management of

and 74 others when they

WCL.

are employed for last about

more than two years and

terminating the stoppage of

work w.e.f. 27-12-95 is legal?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

Claimants Amar

workman is entitled to?"

Kumar Dixit and 74

others are not

entitled to

absorption prayed

by them.

REASONS

14. The IInd party argues that, reference is contented

to be illegal. That the terms of reference are not properly

made and the reference cannot be decided by this Tribunal.

Such pleadings are raised in the Written Statement filed by

IInd party. The statement of claim filed by Ist party refers

that claimants were engaged by contractor for completion

of work of permanent nature driving of stone drift of Incline

No.3 & 4. That the work of driving stone was prohibited by

Central Government vide Notification dated 5-2-75 amended

on 14-6-88 as per pleadings in para-5,6 of the Statement of

Claim. However the terms of reference is not clear that Shri

Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 others were employed by the

contractors illegally and they had become regular

employees of the Principal Employer WCL.

15. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi on

above point relies on ratio held

"In case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat versus

Perfect Pottery company held in1979-S.C.-1356. Their

Lordship of the Apex Court held the jurisdiction of

the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the

points specifically referred for its adjudication and

to matters incidental thereto and the Tribunal cannot

go beyond the terms of reference. Where the very .

terms of references showed that the point in dispute

between the parties was not the fact of closure of its

business by the employers and the references were

limited to the narrow question as to whether the

closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by

the very terms of the references had no jurisdiction

to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the

question whether the business was infact closed

down by the management."

In present case, the terms of reference is that Shri

Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 others were employees of Tandsi

Project of WCL, Kanhan Area. It doesnot refer to that they

were employees of contractor and acquired status of regular

employees of Tandsi Project, WCL. As argued by learned

counsel for lInd party Mr. Shashi, the terms of reference

are not covering dispute that the labours •engaged by

contractor have acquired status of regular employee of

Tandsi Project, WCL the labours were engaged in

prohibited category of work or permanent nature of work.

Therefore the powers of this Tribunal are restricted to

decide the dispute as per the terms of reference itself.

16. The Union adduced evidence of Mohd.Sharif

Kureshi S/o Sheikh Munshi, Amar Kumar dixit S/o Sitaram

Dixit and Shri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi. In their affidavit of

evidence, they have stated that WCL had engaged

contractor. M/s. Shakti Kumar M.Sancheti in Tandsi

Project. All those 75 workers were engaged by contractor.

They have stated that those labours were engaged for

work of permanent nature. That NCWA-IV prohibited work

of permanent nature from contractors labour. Their evidence

is further devoted to settlement dated 31-11-95 between,

contractor and labours engaged by him. That the contract

labours and regular employees were engaged on said work.

Form B of the claimants were prepared. That .the labours

were discontinued from 27-12-95 in violation of Section 25-

F of I.D. Act. The contract labours were engaged for work

of permanent nature. The work of raising and selling of

coal, driving of stone drifts is prohibited for contract

labours. The contract labours were engaged for the said

4780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

work. Copy of Notification dated 21-6-88 is produced. It

prohibits work of raising or selling of coal, coal loading

and unloading, overburden removal and earth cutting, soft

coke manufacturing, driving of stone drips and

Miscellaneous stone cutting underground. Said notification

also clearly provides that it shall not apply to (a) quarries

in the North East coal field which can only be worked for a

few months every year due to heavy rainfall in the area; (b)

Quarries located by the side of river in pench valley and

similar other patch deposits which can only be worked

when the level of river has gone down and during non-

rainy seasons; However Union has not adduced any

evidence with regard to proviso (b) of said notification. No

arguments are advanced by learned counsel for 1st party

in that regard.

17. As the parties are in dispute whether the workman

engaged by contractor acquires status of regular employee

of IInd party WCL, Tandsi Project. The evidence in cross-

examination of witness of 1st party needs to be considered.

Mohd: Sharif in his cross-examination says contractor was

M/s. Shakti Kumar M.Sancheti. The work of Stone drifting,

mud cutting, removal of earth was allotted to said

contractor. He claims ignorance about any agreement

between contractor and IInd party. He denies that work of

repairing road was allotted to the contractor. He denies

that he was allowed work on contract basis and engaged

by the contractor. He claims to be the member of the Union

but he was unable to tell the name of Office bearer of the

Union. He claims ignorance about R/83/98 filed by SKMS

Union. He says that application for leave was submitted to

the representative of the contractor. His signatures were

obtained on register about Payment of Wages. He claim

ignorance whether Form B register was prepared by

contractor. He denies that he was engaged by contractor

for prohibited work. He claims ignorance whether work of

Incline No.3,4 of Tandsi Project was not assigned to the

contractor. He has stated that contractor was maintaining

his account of wages. The wages were paid by contractor

in presence of the Labour Officer.

18. Witness Amar Kumar Dixit in his cross-

examination, has also deposed that he was not engaged on

work by WCL, he and 74 others were engaged by contractor.

He was working at the work assigned to the contractor.

Though he claimed to be members of the Union and paid

contribution he was unable to tell the name of the office

bearer. He claims ignorance about filing of Reference 83/98

by SKMS Union. The copy of Notification dated 21-6-88 is

produced alongwith affidavit. That the contractor denied

work from January 1994 to December 1995. The work was

not completed within 6' months. It equires 2 years for

completion. He claims ignorance whether the contractor

M/s. Shakti Kumar M.Sancheti was holding licence for

engaging contract labours.

19. Shri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi in his cross-

examination says that he doesnot know the name of

President of the Union. He could not tell the names of

office bearer. He admits that M/s. Shakti Kumar M. Sancheti

was engaged as contractor by WCL but he claims

ignorance about the agreement what work was assigned to

said company in Tandsi Project. The work continued from

Feb-1994 to December 1995. 'After completion of work, the

contractor discontinued them from work. The evidence is

clear that all claimants were engaged by contractor and

services were discontinued by the contractor himself.

20. The documentary evidence produced by Union

is Exhibit W-1. Copy of order of reference, W-2 is copy of

order in special leave application dated 23-3-2001, W-3 copy.

of special leave petition. Those documents are hearing for

adjudication of the controversy. Exhibit W-4 is copy of

Notification dated 25-6-88 .prohibiting contract labours to

do the work of drivage of stone drifts and its proviso (b)

exempts quarries located in page 12. As stated above, no

satisfactory explanation in this regard is submitted in

pleadings and arguments by counsel for 1st party. Exhibit

W-5 is copy of NCWAIV. Clause 11.50 prohibits working of

permanent nature by contract labour, Exhibit W-9 is

settlement between contractor and workmen. Said

settlement clearly shows that the dispute about payment

of wages, bouns, attendance , maintaining form B etc. was

resolved between contractor and its employees i.e. the

present claimants. Exhibit W-10 is copy of rejoinder

submitted before Conciliation Officer, Exhibit W-11 are

copies of receipts of contribution paid to the Union, Exhibit

W-12 is copy of NCWF. Relevant provisions provides

employment of contract labours for permanent work. Exhibit

W-14 is licence of contract labour. Name of M/s. Shakti

Kumar M. Sancheti is contractor till 30-12-94 only. Thought

the IInd party has pleaded in Written Statement about

invalidity of licence in December- 1995, documents are

not produced in that regard. It is sufficient to say that

contractor was holding valid licence till December 1994.

That the engagement of contract labours ws prohibited

on work of permanent nature as per Exhibit W-1 and

Notification dated 21-6-88.

21. The management has adduced evidence of Shri

K. Raja Prabhakaran, Roopchand Sanodiya, S.N. Dubey,

Shyam Kumar Chourasiya, Pancham Khadepure, Shri Hari

Prasad Soni, Omkar Prasad, V. Subbarao and Bharat

Bhushan Sharma. They tried to support contentions of the

management that contractor was engaged for doing work

was not permanent nature. The labours were engaged by

contractor. The contractor was liable for payment of wages.

The settlement arrived between the contractors and

labours engaged by him. That contract labours were not

engaged for work of permanent nature. Execution of

agreement and work order by the management that the

services of contract labours were not terminated by the

management of WCL. Counsel for 1st party Mr. Verma

pointed out my attention to evidence in cross-examination

of management's witness. Shri K. Raja Prabhakaran in his

cross-examination says that licence of contractor was till

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4781

31-12-94. Contractor had licence to engage 95 workers. He

used to remain present Conciliation Officer as

representative of the management. He denied suggestion

that he was deposing false to support claim of management.

From his evidence in cross-examination and document

Exhibit W-14, it is clear that licence of contract labour was

valid till December 1994. Shri Roop Chand Sanodiya in his

cross examination says under Mines Act, work is carried

three types. Type lis Pit shaft, No. 2 is opencast and No. 3

is Incline drift was carried in 1994-95. That contractor

requires licence under CL(R&A) Act. The employer

doesnot require licence.The employer needs certificate of

registration but not licence. That WCL has not obtained

licence for 94-95. As per licence, contractors were

authorized to engage 95 labours. As per NCWA-III, IV,

contract labour cannot be engaged for work of permanent

nature. Shri S.N. Dubey in his cross-examination says that

the work of digging was done by permanent labours. The

work in Incline No. 3, 4 was done by contract labours

engaged by M/s Shakti Kumar M. Sancheti. Shri Shyam

Kumar Chourasia in his cross-examination says that he

was unable to tell the names of any employees out of 33

shown at Page 2 of his affidavit. That he was working in

Tandsi Mine No. 1. His detailed evidence on other points

remained unchallenged. In his evidence Shri Hari Prasad

Soni, he says that he is not concerned with Incline No. 3, 4.

Shri Pancham Khadepure also says that he was working in

Incline 1, 2 didnot work in Incline 3, 4. Shri Bharat Bhushan

Sharma in his cross-examination says that he was working

in Tandsi project from 1991 to June 1994. That work of

Incline No. 1, 2 were carried through departmental labours.

He further says that the work undertaken was of permanent

nature. The contract labours were also engaged for said

work. That as per provisions of CL(R&A) Act contract

labours cannot be engaged for permanent work. That

contract labours were engaged for drivage work from

surface to underground. Shri V. Subbarao in his cross-

examination says that the work of open case mine

underground mining was of permanent nature. That the

work of raising coal, coal loading and unloading,

overburden removal and earth cutting etc. were of

permanent nature. Normally work of permanent nature is

extracted from permanent workers. Contract labours are

not engaged. That the work of permanent nature was of

prohibited category for contract labours. Shri Omkar Prasad

in his cross examination says that he is not concerned with

the work of Mining. He was appointed in WCL in 1976. In

1990 he was working in Tandsi colliery. The work of Tandsi

project is carried at surface mining and open cast. Under

ground mining is also undertaken.

22. From oral and documentary evidence dicussed

above, it is clear that despite of Notification dated 21-6-88

and provisions under NCWA-III & IV the contract labours

were engaged on work on permanent nature. So far as

Notification dated 21-6-88, the quarries in mine valley are

excluded, any kind of explanation in that regard is not found

on behalf of Union are not advanced on this point by

learned counsel for Ist party.

23. Learned counsel for Union submits as contract

labours are engaged for prohibiting category of work, in

violation of Notification and provisions of NCWA, the

agreement executed in favour of the contractor is against

public policy and as such void. Learned counsel further

submits that as contract labours are engaged in violation

of Notification in NCWA, they are legally claiming for

absorption as regular employees of IInd party WCL. In

support of his argument, learned counsel heavily relies on

ratio held in.

Case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others

versus National Union Waterfront Workers reported in

2001(7) SCC-1. My attention was pointed out to Para 53, 68

& 125 of the judgement.

Para-53 deals with Notification dated 9-12-1976

issued by Central Government under Section 10(1)

of CL(R&A) Act prohibiting employment of contract

labours from 1-3-77 found non-sustainable.

Para 68 of the judgment also deals with Section

10(1) of Cl(R&A) Act which empower the appropriate

Government to prohibit employment of contract

labour in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment, lays down the procedure and

specified the relevant factors which shall be taken

into consideration for issuing notification under

Section 10(1) of I.D. Act.

In Para 125 of the judgement, their Lordship

concluded upshots of their discussion. In Para 125(3)

their Lordship reduced conclusion that neither

Section 10 of CL(R&A) Act nor any other provision

of the Act whether expressly or by necessary

implication, provides for automatic absorption of

contract labour on issuing a notification by the

appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of

Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract

labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal

employer cannot be required to order absorption of

the contract labour working in the establishment

concerned."

In Para 125(4), the judgement in AIR India case

is prospectively overruled. In Para 125(5) their

Lordship held on issues of prohibition Notification

under Section 10(1) of the CL(R&A) Act prohibiting

employment of contract labour or otherwise in an

Industrial Dispute brought before it or any contract

labour 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 under

4782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to

evade compliance with various beneficial legislations

so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder.

Para 125 of the above judgment does not indicate

that the contract labour is entitled to absorption if he is

illegally employed for work of permanent nature in violation

of any Notification or provisions of NCWA.

24. The question arises whether the 1st party proves

from evidence that the agreement executed in favour of

contractor M/s. Shakti Kumar M. Sancheti is mere ruse or

camouflage. In this regard, reliance is also placed by

Shri Verma on ratio held in :

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus

K.V. Sharmik Corporation of Greater, Mumbai reported

in 2002(4) Supreme Court Cases 609. Their Lordship

held it cannot be concluded that labour contract was

sham or camouflage, its finding must be recorded

based on evidence by Industrial Adjudicator. In para-

19 their Lordship held that Union in the writ Petition

alleged that the labour contract was sham and the

Corporation specifically denied it but the High Court

did not go into the question and did not record a

finding that the labour contract in the present case

was a sham or a camouflage considering the material

on record, even otherwise this being a serious and

disputed fact the High Court could not have

appropriately adjudicated on the issue exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 the High Court

proceeded to conclude that the labour contract was

not genuine and the workers of the Union were

employees of the corporation because the

corporation and the contractors had not complied

with the provisions of the CLRA Act. A conclusion

that the contract was a sham or it was only a

camouflage cannot be arrived at as a matter of law

for non-compliance with the provisions of the CLRA

Act but a finding must be recorded based on

evidence particularly when disputed, by an industrial

adjudicator."

The facts of the present case are not comparable. In

present case, the evidence of witnesses of 1st party in their

cross-examination have stated that they were engaged by

the contractor, they were paid wages by contractor and

registers were signed by them in presence of labour officers.

Their evidence is absolutely silent that any of them were

engaged by the Principal Employer. Their evidence is silent

how the agreement executed in favour of contractor

M/s. Shakit Kumar M. Sancheti is camouflage. On the other

hand, documents produced by union, settlement Exhibit W-9

shows that they were employees engaged by the contractor.

25. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi on the

point relies in ratio held :

In case of General Manager (OSD) Bengal Nagpur

Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon and Bharat Lal and

another reported in 2011-I-LLJ-321(SC). Their

Lordship held that two well recognized tests to find

out whether an employee was contract labour or

direct employee were payment of salary and control

and supervision of employee.

In present case, the evidence in cross-examination

of witnesses of Ist party shows that they were engaged by

contractor, they were paid wages by contractor and they

were working under supervision and control of contractor

and therefore the agreement executed in favour of

M/s. Shakti Kumar M. Sancheti cannot be said camouflage.

26. Reliance is also placed in—

Airport Authority of India, Mumbai and Indian

Airport Kamgar Union and others reported in 2011-I-

LLJ-21 (Bom). Their Lordship held the contention of

award proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous

premise that the nature of contract labouers work

brought them within the scope of workmen under

Industrial Disputes Act. That basis suffered from a

fundamental error and disregarded the ground realities

of such work."

In case of workmen of Nilgiri Coop.MKT Society

Ltd. reported in 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 514. In

Para-37, their Lordship held the control test and the

organization test, therefore, are not the only factors

which can be said to be decisive. With a view to elicit

the answer, the court is required to consider several

factors which would have a bearing on the result (a)

who is the appointing authority, (b) who is the

paymaster, (c) who can dismiss, (d) how long

alternative service lasts, (e) the extent of control and

supervision, (f) the nature of the job e.g. whether it is

professional or skilled work, (g) nature of

establishment, (h) the right to reject."

In present case, the evidence on record shows that

all the claimants were engaged by the contractor as such

appointment authority, wages were paid by the contractor,

services were discontinued by the contractor,. Thus the

evidence on record cannot establish that the agreement

with contractor was mere camouflage. The burden lies on

the Union to prove that agreement is sham but the burden

is not discharged by adducing satisfactory evidence.

In case of International Airport Authority of India

versus International Air Cargo workers Union and

another reported in 2009(13) Supreme Court Cases

374, their Lordship held whether the direction and

control is with principal employer or with contractor,

has to be determined with reference to factors like

who pays salary who has power to initiate

disciplinary action, to remove/dismiss employee from

service, who can tell employee the way work should

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4783

be done, etc. However where contract is merely to

supply labour only, contract labour is bound to work

under supervision of principal employer, in such a

situation, primary control still vests with contractor

and not with Principal Employer.

The evidence discussed above merely shows that

all these employees were engaged by contractor, they

were paid wages by contractor, their wages were

settled before conciliation officer, therefore their

agreement cannot be said camouflage. For above

reasons. I record my finding that the claimants were

engaged by the contractor and the contract was not

camouflage. The claimant donot acquire status of

regular employee of IInd party WCL.

27. Other citations relied by learned counsel for

management Shri Shashi relates to reinstatement and back

wages. As claimants have not established their claim,

discussion of those citations is not necessary.

28. With respect to Point No. 2, the services of Ist

party claimants are discontinued by the contractor despite

of application filed by IInd party for impleading contractor.

Said application was opposed by Union and ultimately

rejected.The contractor is not party to the proceedings.

Therefore legality of retrenchment of his services by

contractor cannot be decided. In absence of contractor, it

cannot be decided whether the retrenchment of claimants

was in violation of Section 25-F or other statutory rules.

For above reasons, I hold that the claimants are not entitled

to reinstatement or absorption as employees of IInd party

WCL. Accordingly Point No. 1, 2 are answered.

29. In the result, award is passed as under :—

Shri Amar Kumar Dixit and 74 others were engaged

by contractors. Their services are not terminated by

management of WCL., IInd party.

Relief prayed by the claimants is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1743.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l bZ lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 155@1993½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@112@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 155/1993)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jablapur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of SECL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/112/1993 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/155/93

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

MP (BMS), Churcha Colliery

Churcha Branch,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

Churcha Colliery of SECL,

PO Churcha Colliery, Distt. Surguja

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of June, 2013

As per letter dated 17-8-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section - 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/112/93-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of Sub Area Manager, Churcha

Colliery of Baikunthpur Area of SECL in not allowing

benefit of pay protection to Shri Vijaynath Singh on

his promotion from LHD (T) Operator to the post of

shot firer-cum-mining sirdar w.e.f. 19-10-89 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. After receiving refernece, workman filed statement

of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3. The case of the Ist party workman

is that he was promoted from the post of LHD(T) Operator

to the post of Mining Sirdar from 19-10-89. On his

promotion, his basic pay was fixed Rs. 1222-60-1702-66-

2230 from 19-10-89. The pay in the lower grade of workman

prior to his promotion was Rs. 1563.990, Since on transfer

to the higher post. the benefit of pay which the workman

was already availing could not be reduced from the last

pay drawn. Workman submits that he was requested for

fixation of pay as per pay scale to the higher promotional

post. It was not considered by the management. The dispute

has been referred for adjudication. Workman submits that

he was drawing pay Rs. 1563 while working as LHD operator.

On promotion, ACP was fixed Rs. 1200 per month is illegal.

4784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

He also claims to be entitled to different allowances for OT,

Night allowance, Underground allowance, charging

allowance, Sunday and PHD allowance. That he had

submitted request in writing on 25-9-91 claiming difference

of pay and arrears on all accounts but it was not accepted.

The workman submits that his scale was wrongly fixed. In

February 1991, his pay was revised to Rs. 1702 instead of

Rs. 1222 from date of promotion i.e. 19-10-89. The workman

prays for difference of revised pay on promotional post.

3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 5/1

to 5/4. The management submits that the dispute was raised

by secretary of BKMS, Churcha Colliery. It was decided

that the case was not fit for reference subsequently

reference made is not legal. The Coal India carries its

activities forming different comapnies including SECL that

workman was appointed as Mazdoor Cat-I on 21-9-74. He

was promoted to LHD(T) Operator in Escavation from 1-4-

87. The employees working in industry to qualify the post

of Mining Sirdar are given chance for selection for the

vacancies available and the workman was selected through

Committee. If departmental candidates are selected, it is

their discretion to join or not, there is no compulsion by

management to join on said post. The pay scale is fixed for

particular post. Workman was selected for post of Mining

Sirdar as per order dated 3-5-91. He joined said post without

any objection. Therefore his pay was fixed as per the scale

provided for Mining sirdar. Rest of the allegation of the

workman are denied. It is submitted that the post of Mining

sirdar is not permanent post, wrongly it was shown as

promotion. The workman cannot take its disadvantage.

The circulars dated 28-6-89 was issued. Workman is not

entitled for pay protection. There are not rules for protection

of pay at the time of promotion. IInd party prayed for

rejection of the claim.

4. Management also filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/3

reiterating its earlier pleadings.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

"(i)

Whether the action of the Sub

In affirmative

Area Manager, Churcha of

SECL in not allowing benefit

of pay protection to

Shri Vijaynath Singh on his

promotion from LHD. (T)

Operator to the post of shot

firer-cum-mining sirdar

w.e.f. 19-10-89 is legal?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

6. The substance of the claim of workman is that he

is praying for pay protection on his promotion to the post

of Mining Sirdar. The management deny said claim of the

workman. Reference is filed by the Union. 1st party Union

did not adduce evidence. Evidence of workman was closed

on 12-6-99. The affidavit is filed by Shri Vikas Dattatreya

Bhide as witness on IInd party management. The said

witness has stated that workman was appointed of mazdoor

Category I on 21-9-74. He was promoted as LHD(T) Operator

Excavation on 1-4-87. That the employees working in

industry qualify post of Mining Sirdar. The workman was

selected for the post of Mining Sirdar on 3-5-91 and joined

the said post. Management witness further submits that

the workman concerned was selected from daily rated

Mining Sirdar which is ex-cadre post and doesnot attract

pay protection. The Office Order Annexure I was

erroneously issued by using the word Promotion. Workman

cannot take its advantage. In his cross-examination,

management's witness says that any workman selected

along with workman are not given pay protection. The

management produced Document Exhibit M-2. Workman

had submitted joining report for the post of Mining Sirdar.

On 19-10-89, he received order Exhibit M-3. The workman

has not produced any rules or circular. That the post of

Mining Sirdar was a permanent post or he was entitled for

protection of pay. The management produced circular dated

28-6-89 issued by Addnl. Personnel Manager that the

employees were not entitled for pay protection. The copy

of circular dated 17-2-1995 is produced which provides

that in case of those piece rated employees who had applied

or have been converted into time rated against selection/

voluntary option, the pay protection of their group wages

of SPRA will not be taken into account. As per the said

circular, it was decided that the piece rated workers shall be

give protection of their existing basic wages subject to the

terms and conditions. Workman was selected as Mining

Sirdar in 1989. The above circular has no retrospective

application and does not substantiate his claim for pay

protection. Therefore the claim of Ist party workman is not

substantiated. The action of the management cannot be

said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No. 1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, the award in passed as under:—

The action of the Sub Area Manager, Churcha

Colliery of Baikunthpur Area of SECL in not allowing

benefit of pay protection to Shri Vijaynath Singh on

his promotion from LHD(T) Operator to the post of

shot firer-cum-mining sirdar w.e.f. 19-10-89 is legal.

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4785

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1744.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrk gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@274@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1744.—In pursuance of Section 17of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2007)

of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/274/2006-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2007

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Central Office, Iklehra,

Branch Kanhan Area,

Chhindwara

....Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Chhindwara

....Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 21st day of June, 2013

1. As per letter dated 5-7-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

274/2006-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of WCL is

dimissing Shri Dulzaan Shah from services w.e.f.

16-5-2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. However Ist party workman failed to appear

and submit Statement of Claim. The workman is proceeded

exparte on 13-7-2011.

3. Management filed Written Statement. It is

submitted that the workman was working as Timber Mistry

at Thesgora Underground Mines of WCL, Pench Area. He

was habitual absentee. His attendance were poor. He was

issued several warnings. The attendance of workman in

2003 was 34 days, in 2004 was 127 days and in 2005—51

days. The charge-sheet was issued to the workman for his

unauthorized absence, Departmental Enquiry was

conducted by Enquiry Officer. Personnel Manager S.

Gadewal was representative of the management. Workman

cross-examined the management's witness. The charges

were proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. After

receiving report of Enquiry Officer, the services of workman

were terminated from 16-5-06. Management submits that

punishment was properly imposed for serious misconduct.

The action of the management is proper and legal.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

"(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative.

management of WCL in

dismissing Shri Dulzaan

Shah from services w.e.f.

16-5-2006 is legal?

(ii)

if so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

Workman is challenging his dismissal from services.

However he failed to appear and submit his statement of

claim. No evidence is adduced by workman rather he failed

to participate in reference proceedings. In Written Statement

filed by management of IInd party, it is claimed that workman

is dismissed after holding enquiry for unauthorized

absence. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Hirok

Sarkar. He was narrated most of the facts pleaded in Written

Statement by the IInd party. That for unauthorized absence,

charge-sheet was issued to workman, enquiry was

conducted, management's witness was cross-examined.

Workman gave his statement. He has admitted that he

remained absent from duty due to old age. The evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged. The

workman has not cross-examined said witness. I do not

find reason to disbelieve the evidence of management. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

4786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

6. In the result, award is passed as under:—

The action of the management of WCL in dismissing

Shri Dulzaan Shah from services w.e.f. 16-5-2006 is

legal.

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1745.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 257@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12025@01@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2013

S.O. 1745.—In pursuance of section 17 of the

Indusutrial Disptues Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2007)

of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/07/2013.

[No. L-12025/01/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 25th day of June, 2013

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 257/2004

Between :

Sri T. Saac,

S/o T. Devaiah,

R/o Pramgudipalli Village,

Chinal Irlapudu Post, Kanigiri Mandal,

Prakasam District

C/o V. Raghunath, Advocate,

13/6, P.D. Colony,

Near Community Hall,

Dilshukhnagar, Hyderabad-60

.....Petitioner

AND

The Assistant General Manager,

Region-I, State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Tirupathi

The Deputy Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Tirupathi

....Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. V. Raghunath, G. Venkata

Reddy and U.D. Jai Bhima Rao,

Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. B.G, Ravindra Reddy and

B.V. Chandra Sekhar,

Advocates

AWARD

This is the petition field invoking sec. 2A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Petitioner who has

been working as Assistant, with the State Bank of India

whose services were since terminated seeking for setting

aside the impugned order No. DPC/R-1/019 dated 9.10.2013

of the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the order

dated 19.4.2004 of the Appellate Authority and to direct

the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner/workman into

service with back wages and all other consequential benefits

from the date of his dismissal from service till retirement

and also to grant relief of seniority and other grants to

which he is entitled to.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

Petitioner joined the State Bank of India on 11.7.1985

and was promoted as Assistant in 1993. On 3.7.2001 he

worked at receipts cash counter at Kanigiri branch of the

said bank which falls under small office of Tirupathi A.P. At

about 12.40 hours on that day, he received a phone call

from Chennai that his elder son-in-law expired there. He

informed of it to the Branch Manager and requested him to

make alternative arrangements to relive him from duty so

that he could proceed to Chennai along with his family.

Branch Manager advised him to complete the day's work

and to go as he was not in a position to make alternative

arrangements. So he completed the work for that day, tallied

the cash and handed over the balance cash to the head

cashier and left the place in hurry. While he was waiting for

boarding bus, to go to Chennai along with his family at the

bus stand a messenger came, in a jeep, belonging to the

bank and informed him that he was summoned by the

Branch Manager. Then, he advised his family to proceed

of the journey and returned to the bank. The Branch

Manager there informed him that there was shortage of

cash of Rs. 21000/- transacted by the Petitioner on that

day. Petitioner replied him that he tallied the cash book and

handed over the entire balance to the Head Cashier and

there was no shortage of cash transacted by him. Then,

the Branch Manager asked him for counter keys so as to

check it. He handed over the counter keys. Branch Manager

proceeded with Head Cashier and accountant and also

one Sri K. Brahmaiah, clerk-cum-cashier. At the time of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4787

opening of counter Petitioner was kept away from that

scene. There after they informed him that they found Rs.

20000/- i.e., two sections of Rs. 100/- denominations in the

cash counter and demanded him for the balance of Rs.

1000/- Sri K. Brahmaiah gave Rs. 1000/- to the Branch

Manager. As the Petitioner was kept away from the scene

he was unable to know what happened at the counter. No

panchanama was conducted and no statements were

recorded on that day. A charge memo dated 5.3.2002 was

served on the Petitioner on 13.3.2002. His allegations that,

Why the Petitioner did not hand over the counter

keys on 3.7.2001 to cash office at the time of leaving

the office.

Petitioner failed to give proper expalanation for the

shortage of cash which was allegedly found in the

counter at 10 PM on 3.7.2001 in the presence of the

Branch Manager and custodian? And

Petitioner made good Rs. 1000/- when questioned

by the branch officials about cash shortage.

Petitioner denied the truth of all these allegations by

giving his reply Dated 18.3.2002. An enquiry officer was

appointed under letter dated 21.8.2002. Enquiry was

conducted on 19.11.2002 and 30.12.2002. Enquiry Officer

submitted his report on 4.4.2003 to the Disciplinary

Authority. Copy of the same was not supplied to the

Petitioner before passing final order of punishment. The

Disciplinary Authority issued order dated 25.7.2003

proposing punishment of removal from service

mechanically and without application of mind. Petitioner

was given personal hearing on 29.9.2003. Final orders of

punishment 9.10.2002 were served on him. He presented

statutory appeal dated 22.11.2003 to the Appellate

Authority who rejected the same mechanically by order

dated 19.4.2004. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority

is highly arbitrary opposite to principles of natural justice,

equity and fair play. Punishment awarded is shockingly

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The enquiry

officer's report is perverse and not basing on any legal

evidence. It is a cooked up case to make the Petitioner a

scape goat to save the influential officers who are

responsible for shortage of cash. There are conflicting

statements of PWs 1 and 2 as to the persons who were

present at the time of opening of the counter of the Petitioner

on 3.7.2001. Statements of PW1 to 3 were obtained by the

investigating officer after three days after the incident.

Statements of two award staff said to be present at that

time were not at all obtained and they were not examined as

witnesses during enquiry. It is fatal to the case of the

respondents. Only the interested witnesses i.e., PW1 1

and 2 were produced by the respondent bank. PWs 2 and

3 were joint custodians of cash charge who are responsible

for accounting the cash in cash sheet, where an amount of

Rs. 21000/- was found to be short by the central office on

3.7.2001 during inspection. As they are responsible for

accounting for the shortage of cash in cash chart, PWs 2

and 3 can not act as credible witnesses in the matter. Branch

Manager appeared to have tried to save the image of the

branch and to save his co-officers by finding the Petitioner

as an easy scape goat. The enquiry report given basing on

the evidence of such persons is perverse and invalid. There

are interpolation of figures and made conspicuously in the

vault register on 3.7.2001 to cover up the lapses on the part

of PWs 2 and 3. The amendment of telegram dated 4.7.2001

which shows an inflated figure of Rs. 21000/- being the

amount found in the counter drawer of the Petitioner also

is an attempt to cover up the lapse of PWs 2 and 3. PW2

the Head Cashier was having duplicate key of the counter.

He might have placed the amount of Rs. 20000/- in the cash

counter after noticing the shortage by the Central Office.

The Inspecting Manager reported that the shortage of Rs.

23000/- was made good. But the correspondence speaks of

shortage of Rs. 21000/- only. Bank never followed the

procedure for taking acknowledgement of the counter

cashier while handing over the balance. The cash said to

have been found in the Petitioner's counter is not produced

before the enquiry officer for verification. Petitioner served

the bank for 26 years with clean record. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondents filed their counter with averments in brief

as follows:

On 3.7.2001 Petitioner left the bank without

accounting for the cash transactions made by him and

without handing over the entire cash and the keys of the

cash counter. It was noticed by the branch functionaries

that there was shortage of Rs. 21000/- and therefore in the

fitness of the things it was decided to search the cash

counter which was under the lock and key of the Petitioner.

Accordingly Petitioner was summoned and the cash

counter was opened with the keys brought by him and the

sum of Rs. 20000/- was found in it. Petitioner was issued

with show cause notice/charge sheet dated 5.3.2002 calling

upon him as to why disciplinary action should not be

initiated for the irregularities/misconduct reported to have

been committed by him. Petitioner denied all the allegations

thereon regular domestic enquiry was ordered. The

departmental enquiry was conducted in conformity with

the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was given full

and due opportunity to defend himself. He participated in

the enquiry. The enquiry is legal and valid. The enquiry

officer submitted his report dated 4.4.2003. His findings are

based on record and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority.

As per his findings all the charges were proved accordingly

Disciplinary Authority inflicted the penalty of removal from

service. Petitioner was given personal hearing by the

Disciplinary Authority. He did not make out any reasonable

valid points for consideration. Thus, Disciplinary Authority

confirmed the punishment of removal from service as

already proposed, in previous memorandum dated 25.7.2003

vide final order dated 9.10.2003. Petitioner made an appeal

4788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

to the Appellate Authority/2nd respondent after careful

examination of the appeal and all relevant records of the

case. Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The allegation that

the witnesses examined during domestic enquiry were all

interested witnesses and that the Petitioner was made scape

goat by the officers are all not correct. Absolutely there is

no reason, necessity or motive to make the Petitioner as

scape goat. The witnesses examined are competent and

direct witnesses to the incident. Their evidence is reliable.

There is no necessity to present the cash found in the

counter in the same form as departmental enquiry is not a

criminal trial. The allegation that award staff was not

produced as withnesses and no credible evidence was not

on record is not correct. Enquiry is legal and findings of

the enquiry officer are based on record. Punishment

imposed is commensurate to the misconduct proved in the

enquiry. There are no merits in this petition. There are no

bonafides in the allegation of the Petitioner. They are all

after thoughts invented for the purpose making over the

present case. Respondent is a financial institution and any

financial irregularity is detrimental to the very existence of

the institution. Respondent bank imposes lots of

confidence on its employees while dealing with financial

matters. Petitioner has shattered the confidence because

of his misconduct. Respondent bank is dealing with public

money as custodian of public funds. Any kind of

misconduct by its employees by misappropriation or fraud

shatters the image of the banking institution and it is highly

detrimental to the interest of the organization. Respondent

has lost confidence in the Petitioner and he is not entitled

to any of the reliefs sought for. Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

4. Along with their respective pleadings both parties

field their respective documents which are marked with the

consent of counsels. For Petitioner, Ex. W1 to W7

documents viz., copies of charge sheet. show cause notice

dated 5.3.2002, reply of Petitioner dated 18.3.2004, Enquiry

Officer's report, letter proposing punishment of removal

dated 25.7.2003, final order of punishment dated 9.10.2003,

appeal to Appellate Authority dated 22.11.2003, order of

Appellate Authority dated 19.4.2004 are filed. Whereas

respondents have filed the following documents Ex. M1 to

M14 viz., copies of memo dated 1.11.2001, suspension order,

charge sheet, letters dated 18.3.2002 and 17.2.2003, four

proceedings dated 26.4.2002, proceedings dated 25.7.2003,

memorandum dated 9.10.2003 enclosing final proceedings,

appeal dated 22.11.2003, Appellate Authority's order dated

19.4.2004 and enquiry proceedings. All these documents

are perused.

5. During the course of the present case proceedings,

petitioner's counsel filed a memo conceding the validity of

domestic enquiry. Basing on the same this court held the

domestic enquiry in this case as valid by virtue of order

dated 19.1.2009.

6. Written arguments were also filed by either party

and the same were considered. Heard the arguments of

either party.

7. The points that arise for determination are:

Whether the impugned order No. DPC/R/-1/019

dated 9.10.2003 of the Disciplinary Authority which

was confirmed by the order dated 19.4.2004 by the

Appellate Authority are liable to be a set aside if so

on what grounds?

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs

sought for?

8. Point No(1):

As per the charge sheet the charges levelled against

the Petitioner are as follows:

a) While handling the receipts cash counter at the branch,

on 3.7.2001, Petitioner is alleged to have committed the

following irregularities:-

(i)

Petitioner did not hand over the counter keys on

3.7.2001 to Cash Officer, as was normally done by

him, when he left the branch.

(ii)

Petitioner did not give proper explanation when

he was summoned back to the branch along with

the cashcounter keys at 10.00 pm on 3.7.2001 and

his cash counter drawers were unlocked in the

presence of the Branch Manager and joint

custodians and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees

Twenty thousand only) in Rs. 100/- denomination

of 2 sections was found in his cash counter.

(iii)

Petitioner made good an amount of Rs. 1000/-, when

questioned by the branch officials about cash

shortage.

(b) It is alleged that Petitioner's above acts, as

mentioned in paragraph(a), would indicate that he had

deliberately not brought to the notice of the Cash Officer

about the excess cash of Rs. 21,000/- received by him

along with hand balance in cash balance box with an

idea to embezzle the excess cash, so received. The incident

of alleged misconduct has taken place on 3.7.2001 as per

the material on record. As on that date, Petitioner who has

been working as assistant with the Kanigiri branch of the

State Bank of India attended to the work at receipts cash

counter and after completing the day's work he tallied the

cash and he handed over balance cash to the Head Cashier

and left the bank. As far as these aspects are concerned

they are not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact by both

parties that there after, the Petitioner was called to the bank

by sending a messenger and he was asked to hand over

his counter keys to the Branch Manager and he handed

over the said keys to the Branch Manager at that time.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4789

9. No doubt, admittedly, Petitioner has not handed

over his counter keys while handing over balance cash

after tallying the cash to the Head cashier, as he was

supposed to do and kept the counter keys with him. The

first part of the charge(a) leveled against him has been that

he did not hand over the counter keys on 3.7.2001 to cash

office while leaving the office. As to this charge is concerned

Petitioner can not deny the irregularity committed by him

in not handing over the counter keys to the Head Cashier.

In this regard, it is the contention of the Petitioner in his

petition that nothing prevented the authorities to open his

counter with duplicate keys available with the Head Cashier.

For this contention, respondents have not given any reply.

A careful perusal of the domestic enquiry proceedings do

not reveal that at any point of time Petitioner has pointed

out this aspect during domestic enquiry. Therefore, much

credence need not be given to this contention raised by

the Petitioner. Thus, it can safely be held that as far as the

first part of charge(a), levied against the Petitioner is

concerned, it is a proved irregularity on his part.

10. As far as the second part of charge(a) is

concerned, it reads as follows:

“Petitioner failed to give proper explanation for the

shortage of cash which was allegedly found in the

counter at 10 PM on 3.7.2001 in the presence of the

Branch manager and custodian.”

The fact of the incident are to be gathered from the

contentions and counter contentions of either party and

the enquiry proceedings placed before the court.

11. It is contention of the Petitioner that on 3.7.2001

while he was attending to his duties he received telephonic

information that his elder son in law expired in Chennai and

asked for relieving him from duties by making alternative

arrangements, but as he could not be relieved from duty as

alternative arrangements could not be made, he continued

the day's work, completed it, tallied the cash and handed

over the balance cash to the Head Cashier and left the

Bank in hurry, to proceed to Chennai along with his family.

He further contended that while he was waiting for the bus

to travel to Chennai along with his family a messenger from

the bank came there by a jeep, and told him that he was

summoned by the Branch manager and thus, he proceeded

to the bank telling the members of his family to proceed

with their journey, and he would join them later. He further

claimed that the Branch Manager, who was in the bank

asked him for the counter keys and when he handed over

the keys, the said Branch Manager together with others

went to the Petitioner's counter but, keeping him away

from that place and sometime later they returned to him

and informed him that Rs. 20000 cash was found in his

counter, but, no panchanama proceedings were conducted

at that time and he does not know how and in whose

presence the cash was found in his counter. Respondents

have not denied the truth of these specific allegations made

by the Petitioner.

12. Evidently, the Petitioner's counter was not

searched in his presence, though he was very much

available there. No panchanama proceedings were

conducted. As rightly pointed out by the Petitioner,

statements of the witnesses were not recorded at that time.

Record shows that three days later statements of the

workman were recorded. When serious allegation of

embezzlement of money is being made conducting

panchanama in the presence of the alleged workman done

and prompt recording of the statement of witnesses are the

fundamental proceedings/precautions to be taken up by

anybody, especially the officer who are conducting the

proceedings of search and seizure. Non-conducting of

these proceedings certainly gives raise to prejudice to the

interests of the Petitioner. Another important aspect to be

noted is that joint-custodians formed part of the search

and seizure party.

13. Further more, as can be seen from the evidence of

Sri Ch. Chalapathi Rao, who has been working as officiating

accountant of the Kanigiri branch of the State Bank of

India and who deposed as PW3 during the enquiry

proceedings, he was the person who maintained the vault

and deposits of the hard cash into the vault of the bank.

On 3.7.2001 the officials of the central office of the bank

have inspected Kanigiri branch and found that the vault

over of cash of Rs. 21000 in the cash chest. PW2 Sri P.C.

Peddanna the then cash officer of the Kanigiri branch of

the State Bank of India has categorically deposed during

the enquiry that he handed over the cash to Payment

Cashier and handed over the hard balance box, to the

Petitioner herein and that the amount of Rs. 21000 was not

entered into the vault register. Thus, the evidence of PWs

2 as well as 3 clearly shows that there was no entry in the

vault register which can show that the amount of Rs. 21000

was actually handed over to the Petitioner by the cash

officer. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is therefore to the

effect that PW2 is the person who handed over the hard

cash box to the Petitioner and PW3 is the person who has

to maintain the vault register. They both are responsible

for proper maintenance of cash account. But, there is no

account regarding the amount of Rs. 21000 maintained on

3/7/2001 prior to the inspection of the branch. For this, the

explanation given is that PW3 has forgotten to maintain

the register. That means there is no specific record to show

that the Petitioner was entrusted with the missing amount

of Rs. 21000 by PW2 on 3.7.2001.

14. Further, as can be seen from the evidence

gathered on record during domestic enquiry, after the

missing cash was recovered, withdrawal entry as well as

deposit entry were made in the vault register on 3.7.2001

and at that time the amount recovered has been mentioned

as "Rs. 23000", PWs 2 and 3 both have spoken so while

they were under cross examination. The said entry stands

4790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

as Rs. 23000 only. Thus, as per the said entry it has been

stated in the vault register an amount of Rs. 23000 was

deposited. Whereas, as per the evidence on record

Rs. 20000 was recovered from the counter of the Petitioner

and Rs. 1000 was recovered from him. Then where from the

remaining amount of Rs. 2000 has come, is a question which

remained unanswered. Further all these discrepancies throw

reasonable doubt on the very proceedings itself.

15. The evidence on record is further disclosing that

as on 3.7.2001 the laid down procedure for handling of

hard cash was not being followed in Kanigiri branch. The

joint custodians of the cash have not at all followed the

required procedure while handling the case, as can be seen

from the evidence on record. PW1 the then branch manager,

of Kanigiri branch has stated that it is not international on

the part of the joint custodians, in not entering the

withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 21000 during the morning

of 3.7.2001 in the vault register. The material on record

does not give out the reason why he could come to such

an understanding.

16. The above discussed evidence clearly shows that

the evidence of the joint custodians of the cash in the

given branch on the day of incident, one among whom is

the person who failed to make relevant entries in the vault

report. Such report has been accepted by the Disciplinary

Authority totally and he proposed for awarding the

punishment of removal of the petitioner from service.

17. One important aspect to be noted is that before

accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the

Disciplinary Authority has not afforded any opportunity

to the Petitioner to say his contentions/comments regarding

the various findings in the enquiry by supplying a copy of

the same, together with the enquiry proceedings, to the

Petitioner. After receiving the enquiry report, the

Disciplinary Authority straight away proceeded to propose

punishment to be awarded to the Petitioner and issued

show cause notice to him, asking him why such punishment

shall not be awarded to him. No doubt Petitioner has been

afforded a personal hearing after issuing such show cause

notice. But that personal hearing was confined to the

quantum of punishment to be awarded only. Thus, an

opportunity to dispute with and explain regarding the

various findings of the enquiry officer in the light of the

evidence adduced on record during domestic enquiry, has

been denied to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority

before considering the findings of the enquiry officer. Thus,

it can reasonably be held that unilaterally the Disciplinary

Authority has considered the enquiry report and accepted

the same without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner.

This is one other strong ground being pleaded by the

Petitioner to consider the proceedings of the Disciplinary

Authority as arbitrary and unjust. This ground is well

founded and is acceptable.

18. In view of fore gone discussion of the material on

record it can clearly be seen that finding fault with the

Petitioner stating that he failed to give explanation for the

shortage of cach, which was allegedly found in his counter

at 10 PM on 3.7.2001 in the presence of Branch Manager

and Joint custodians can not be accepted as proper and

just. The very finding of such cash in the counter of the

Petitioner is to be viewed with doubt, in view of the

circumstances of finding of such cash and the manner in

which the same was found. As already discussed above,

the evidence shows that the other joint custodians of the

case have become party to the search party. PW1 the

Branch manager has categorically admitted that there was

lapse on the part of the joint custodians in handling the

cash on 2.7.2001 and 3.7.2001. Further as already observed

above, the alleged search and seizure has taken place not

in the presence of the Petitioner. He was kept away from

the scene of search and seizure, though he was very much

available in the premises. Further no panchanama has been

conducted. Further more, the making good the amount of

Rs. 1000 by one Brahmaiah the joint custodian on behalf of

the Petitioner will not be sufficient proof of Petitioner's

guilt.

19. the other charge leveled against the Petitioner

has been that he made good Rs. 1000 when questioned by

the bank officials about cash shortage. As to this aspect is

concerned it is the claim of the Petitioner that he was in

distress mood at that time and when he was asked to make

good of the amount of Rs. 1000 his colleague Mr. Brahmaiah

has handed over an amount of Rs. 1000 to the authorities.

As can be seen from the evidence of the PW2 Brahmaiah

is the person who opened the counter of the Petitioner

when the amount of Rs. 20000 was said to be found in its.

The evidence of PW3 indicates that Sri Brahmaiah the clerk-

cum-cashier of the branch alone has given a section of

Rs. 10 which amounts to Rs. 1000 for making good the

missing amount when Petitioner could not bring such

section of the amount.

20. Whereas it is the contention of the respondents

that as there was not reluctance on the past of the Petitioner

in making good the missing amount of Rs. 1000 he was

found to be guilty of misappropriation of that amount. But

the evidence on record shows that Brahmaiah is the person

who supplied money for making good the missing money

on behalf of the Petitioner to the bank. Thus, just because

that amount has been made good in such manner, it can

not be said what Petitioner has accepted his guilt. Thus,

the findings of Enquiry Officer on all the three sections of

charge (a) are not acceptable. Answer to charge (b) is

nothing but consequential to the answer arrived at for

charge (a) Thus, the action on the part of the Disciplinary

Authority in accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer

that too, without even giving opportunity to Petitioner to

comment upon the enquiry proceedings and enquiry

finding, is certainly to be held as unjust arbitrary and illegal.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4791

21. In view of the fore gone discussion of the material

on record it can safely be concluded that the proceedings

of the Disciplinary Authority in this case which were

confirmed by the Appellate Authority are arbitrary, unjust,

and are liable to be set aside.

This point is answered accordingly.

22. Point No. II : In view of the finding given in Point

No.(I) above, the impugned order No. No.DPC/R-1/019

dated 9.10.2003 which was confirmed by the order dated

19.4.2004 of the Appellate Authority are liable to be set

aside.

23. No doubt, the bank of the respondents being a

public financial institution which handles public money as

custodian of public funds must deal very strictly with the

erring employees who shattered the faith of the bank in

them. But, the said employees are human beings who are

entitled to lead their lives with all pride and respect. Being

citizens of the India they are entitled for fair and proper

treatment and also the benefits of principles of natural

justice. The Disciplinary Authority, while dealing with the

incidents of this nature must not blindly accept the findings

of the enquiry officer. He has a verify the evidence adduced

on record during domestic enquiry with open mind, give

full opportunity to the charged employee to explain the

circumstances and then come to reasonable conclusion.

In the present case, the only irregularity which appear to

have been proved beyond reasonable doubt is, the failure

on the part of the Petitioner in handing over the key of the

cash counter to the cash officer. As to the other aspects

are concerned one can clearly see that the entire bunch of

the joint custodians are responsible for the lapses and

irregularities in handling of the cash on the given dates.

There is no proper proof as to the availability of cash in the

counter of Petitioner, as there was no panchanama

conducted regarding search and seizure and as the search

was not conducted in the presence of the Petitioner, though

he was very much available on the spot. These facts were

discussed in details while deciding Point No. (I). Thus, if at

all Petitioner is to be awarded with punishment, it would be

for the irregularity of his handing over the keys of the cash

counter to his higher up while leaving the office. This is a

very minor irregularity and for that a warning to him to be

careful in future is suffice.

24. Thus, the publishment awarded by the

Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner is totally

unwarranted and is liable to be set aside. Thus, Petitioner

is to be ordered to be reinstated into service forthwith.

Considering the circumstances of the case, Petitioner is

entitled for full back wages due to him from the date of his

removal from service 9.10.2003 till the date od his

reinstatement. Petitioner shall be entitled for all other

attendant benefits also.

This point is answered accordingly.

RESULT:—

25. In the result, Petition is allowed. the impugned

proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority/first respondent

No. DPC/R-I/109 dated 9.10.2003 which was confirmed by

the Appellate Authority/the 2nd respondent by the

proceedings No. PER & HRD/9-152 dated 19.4.2004 are

declared as illegal, arbitrary and are hereby set aside. The

Petitioner shall be reinstated into service forth with. He is

entitled for full back wages from the date of his removal

from service i.e., 9.10.2003 till the date of his reinstatement.

He is entitled for all other attendant benefits.

Award passed accordingly, Transmit.

Typed to dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal

Assistant, corrected by me on this the 25th day of June,

2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photosate copy of memorandum No. DPC/R-

I/019 dated 9.10.2003

Ex.W2:

Photosate copy of reply of Petitioner

dt. 18.3.2004

Ex.W3:

Photosate copy of enquiry report

Ex.W4:

Photosate copy of memorandum No. DPC/R-

I/012 dated 25.7.2003

Ex.W5:

Photosate copy of final order of punishment

dt. 9.10.2003

Ex.W6:

Photosate copy of appeal before Appellate

Authority dt. 22.11.2003

Ex.W7:

Photosate copy of order of Appellate

Authority dt. 19.4.2004

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.W1:

Office copy of memo. No. DPC/R-I/011,

dt. 1.11.2001

Ex.W2:

Office copy of memo. No. DPC/R-I/012,

dt. 1.11.2001

Ex.W3:

Office copy of memo. No. DPC/R-I/019, dt.

5.3.2002

Ex.W4:

Photosate copy of representation of

explanation of Petitioner dt. 18.3.2002

Ex.W5:

Office copy of 1r. dt. 17.2.2003

Ex.W6:

Office copy 1r.. No. DPC/R-I/001, dt. 26.4.2002

4792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ex.W7:

Office copy of lr. No. DPC/R-I/002,

dt. 26.4.2002

Ex.W8:

Office copy of lr. No. DPC/R-I/003 dated

26.4.2002

Ex.W9:

Office copy of lr. No. DPC/R-I/004

dt. 26.4.2002

Ex.W10:

Office copy of lr. No. DPC/R-I/013 dated

25.7.2003

Ex.W11:

Office copy of memo. No. DPC/R-I/018 dated

9.10.2003

Ex.W12:

Representation of Petitioner to Appellate

Authority dt. 22.11.2003

Ex.W13:

Office copy of order No. Per & HRD/9-152

dt. 19.4.2004

Ex.W14:

Office copy of order No. Per & HRD/9-153

dated 19.4.2004

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1746.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 96@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@109@98&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2013

S.O. 1746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 96/99) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 12/07/2013

[No. L-41012/109/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/96/99

Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle

Shri Harprasad & Smt. Ramdulari, LRs of

deceased workman Shri Raghunandan Prasad,

Village Piparia,

PO Umaria Thana,

Distt. Lalitpur

...Workman

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager (P),

Central Railway, Habibganj,

Bhopal (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of June 2013

1. As per letter dated 24-2-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-141012/109/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of DRM,

Central Railways, Bhopal in terminating the services

of Shri Raghunandan Prasad S/o Harprasad w.e.f. 14-

12-88 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled for?

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party filed his statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/5. The case of 1st party workman is that he was

appointed as Class-IV employee in November 1978 with

IInd party Railway. He was working under PWI, Agra

subsequently under PWI Bhopal, PWI Madura, PWI,

Palwat, PWI, Agra Cantt, PWI Faridabad, PWI Lalitpur,

PWI Jhansi and at PWI Vidisha. That he worked under

Railway Administration for more than a decade with

different authorities. He performed his duties satisfactorily.

That he was on sick leave for few days in December 1988.

When he reported to duty after recover from illness, he

was not allowed to resume duty. He approached various

authorities of the management but no result. Finally he

was told that his services were terminated from 14-12-1988.

He submitted that his services were terminated without

holding enquiry, in violation of Section 25 of I.D. Act. On

such contentions, Ist party workman prays for setting aside

order of his termination and prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to

9/4, The reliefs prayed by workman are denied. It is denied

that the Ist party workman was engaged in the year 1988.

He denied that the workman was satisfactorily working

with the IInd party. According to IInd party, the workman

was engaged as casual labour on 19-7-88 to 15-12-88.

Thereafter he had not reported to duty. On 12-7-89, he has

returned back his Service Card No. 273309. Rest of the

contentions of the Ist party are denied. It is submitted that

Ist party workman had not completed 240 days service. He

is not covered as workman under Section 25-B of the I.D.

Act. The claim of the workman is not tenable. The reference

is not tenable. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4. During pendency, Ist party workman died, his LRs

namely Shri Harprasad and Smt. Ramdulari are brought on

record.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4793

My findings are recorded against each of them for reasons

are below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

Services are not

management of DRM,

terminated as

Central Railway, Bhopal

alleged

in terminating the services

of Shri Raghunandan Prasad,

S/o Harprasad w.e.f. 14-12-88

is legal?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman are

rejected.

REASONS

6. Ist party workman is challenging termination from

service contending that he was appointed as class-IV

employee from 1978, he worked satisfactorily for 10 years.

In December 1988, he was on sick leave. After he was

returned to duty, he was not allowed to work. All these

allegations of workman are denied by the management.

Workman died during pendency of reference. LRs are

brought on record. LRs failed to produce evidence,

Management filed evidence of witness Shri

Chandraprakash Yadav. He has stated that deceased

workman has not returned to duty after 15.12.88. As such

he has abandoned the service. Deceased workman engaged

as casual labour during 19.7.88 to 15.12.88. The documents

Exhibit M-I to M-6 are proved from evidence of said

witness. As no evidence is adduced by deceased workman,

claim of the workman is not supported by any evidence.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

"The action management of DRM, Central Railway,

Bhopal has not terminated the services of Shri

Raghunandan Prasad, S/o Harprasad w.e.f. 14.12.88.

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1747.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos izca/k

ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] y[kuÅ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-7-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@56@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 16/2009) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Uttar Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

23/07/2013.

[No. L-41011/56/2008-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present

Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 16/2009

Ref. No. L-41011/56/2008-IR(B-I) dated: 17.06.2009

Between

Mandal Sanghatan Mantri

Uttar Railway Karmachari Union

283/63 KH(B), Garhi Kannora, Premvati Nagar

PO-Manak Nagar

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Syeed Khan)

And

Varishth Mandal Karmik Adhikai

Uttar Railway

DRM Karyalaya

Hazratganj

I.D. No. 16/2007.

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/56/2008-IR(B-I) dated:

17.06.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi 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 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Mandal Sanghatan Mantri, Uttar

Railway Karmachari Union 283/63 KH (B), Garhi Kannora,

Premvati Nagar, PO-Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the

Varishth Mandal Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway, DRM

Karyalaya, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"KYA UTTAR RAILWAY PRABNDHAN DWARA

SHRI SAYEED KHAN, SHEDMAN-II LOCOSHED

KO RAILWAY BOARD KE BUDRIT KRAMANK

4794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SAN. 11466/P.C-PANCHAM-I DINANK 24.11.98 KE

ANUSAAR VETAN KA NIRDHARIT VETANMAN

RS 4500-7000 MAIN NA KIYA JANA NAYAYOCHIT

EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO KAAMGAAR

KIS RAAHAT KO PANE KA HAKDAAR HAI"?

3. The case of the workan's union, in brief, is that the

workman, Mo. Saeed Khan was working as Shed Man-II in

the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 and the fixation of the

workman was done as per report of Fifth Pay Comission in

pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. It has been submitted by the

union that the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 was revised to Rs.

4500-7000 as per Railway Board's order dated 24.11.98; but

the pay of the workman has not been fixed in the pay scale

of Rs. 4500-7000 till date in spite of repeated representations

before the management. Accordingly, the union has prayed

that the pay of the workman be fixed in the pay scale of

Rs. 4500-7000 with consequential benefits.

4. The management of the railways has disputed the

claim of the workman's union by filling its written statement

wherein it has mentioned that the pay scale of

Rs. 4500-7000 was allowed to those who were working as

Shed Man in pay scale of Rs. 1350-30-1440-40-2200; but

the workman is working as Shed Man-II in the pay scale of

Rs. 1320-2040; and accordingly, was not entitled to fixation

in pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. Hence, the railway

administration has prayed that the claim of the workman's

union may be rejected being devoid of merit.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder;

wherein it has stated nothing new apart from reiterating

the facts already stated in the statement of claim.

6. The parties have filed documentary as well as oral

evidence in support of their respective claim and cross-

examined each other's witness also accordingly, the case

was listed for argument.

7. On the date fixed for argument, the authorized

representative of workman's union submitted that it does

not want to press the present claim as the workman

concerned has since retried and has received all financial

benefits form the management. He made an endorsement

on the order sheet to the effect that "Karmaar sevanivratt

ho gaya hai use sabhi hit laabh prapt ho chuke hai. Atah

union yah vaad nai chalanachahti. " This move of the

workman's union in not opposed by the authorized

representative of the management who endorsed 'not

opposed' in this context on the order sheet.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

and enforsement made by the authorized representative of

the union not to press the present industrial dispute and

the authorized representative of the management has not

opposed their move, there is no need to proceed further

with the present industrial dispute.

9. Accordingly, 'no claim' award is given in the present

industrial dispute. No relief is required to be given to the

workman concerned as the Trade Union's does not want to

pursue their case for claimed. The reference under

adjudication is answered accordingly.

10. Award as above.

Lucknow

22nd March, 2013.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1748.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l bZ lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 135@2003½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-7-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@390@2002&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 135/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of South Eastern Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/390/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/135/2003

Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle

Shri Manoga Thakur

Officer on special duty,

Rastriya Colliery Workers Federation,

C/o SECL, Korba Area,

PO Korba Colliery, Distt. Korba

...Workman

Versus

Deputy Manager,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

Lakshman Project,

PO Kusmunda,

Distt. Korba

...Management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4795

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of June 2013

1. As per letter dated 6-8-2003 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

22012/390.2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of SECL is

not referring the dispute of date of birth of Shri

Kanhaiyalal S/o Shri Thul Sai to the Apex Medical

Board for determination of age is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at page 2/1 to 2/2. Workman submits that he was working

as Driver Cat-VI at Laxman Open Cast Project, Kusmunda

Area of SECL. That his date of birth is 20-4-1953 but wrongly

recorded as 1-1-1948 in his service book and Form B

Resigter. That he had requested management for its

correction. He had submitted documents Identify Card,

school Leaving Certificate, Date of Birth Certificate issued

by the Registrar in which the date of birth was recorded as

20-4-53. The grievance of workman is regarding

implementation of Instruction No. 76 by Age Determination

Committee for resolving the dispute of date of birth. The

workman was agreeable for age determination by the said

Committee.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/

2. It is not disputed that workman working as Driver Cat-

VI. That in Form B, the date of birth is recorded as 1-1-1948.

That its correctness was accepted by workman affixing his

thumb impression. Service excerpts of applicant were

circulated in 1987 with privilege to correct if any wrong

entry in service record. That in the Service Excerpts, the

age of workman was mentioned 34 years as on 15-10-87. It

was accepted by workman. As per Service Register, his

date of birth is 1-1-1948. That applicant filed zerox copy of

Identity Card. That his age was 30 years on 17-8-84. Next

document produced is Transfer Certificate. After 43 years,

it cannot be admitted as proof of date of birth of applicant.

The certificate issued by Registrar also cannot be relied as

it was issued on 19-4-76. Said document was available with

workman at the time of date of circulation of Service Excerpts

on 15-10-87. That Instruction No. 76 produced by applicant

cannot claim its benefit on deciding age by Age

Determination Committee. Non-applicant prayed for

rejection of the application.

4. Applicant filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/8. He had

denied all contentions raised by IInd party management in

his written Statement. Workman has reiterated his

contentions in the statement of claim. He further submits

that in medical examination report, his age was shown 46

years on 3-9-99. In Form PS-3 & PS-4,date of birth was

shown as 1-1-1942.

5. Non-applicant also replied to the rejoinder at Page

5/1 to 5/2 denying all contentions of workman.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of SECL in not

referring the dispute of date

of birth of Shri Kanhaiyalal

S/o Shri Thul Sai to the Apex

Medical Board for

determination of age is legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?"

order.

REASONS

7. The reference relates to whether the action of

management of SECL not referring dispute of date of birth

of workman Kanhaiyalal to Apex Medical Board for

determination of age. The parties are in dispute about date

of birth of workman. In Service Record, Form B, the date of

birth is recorded as 1-1-48. Workman claimed his correct

date of birth as 20-4-53. As per the terms of reference, the

dispute about correct date of birth of workman is not

referred for adjudication. The reference is only about

legality of the action of the management is not sending

dispute of his date of birth to Apex Medical Board for

determination of age.

8. The workman filed his affidavit of evidence

covering most of the facts about his appointment as piece

rated labour in 1973. His date of birth is recorded in Form B

as 1-1-48. That his correct date of birth is 20-4-53. He had

produced School Leaving Certificate, Date of Birth

Certificate issued by Registrar, Identity Card, Form "O"

report of Medical Exam. In view of the terms of reference,

the dispute about date of birth is not referred for

adjudication. The dispute of the age cannot be decided by

this Tribunal as it would be beyond the terms of reference.

9. In his cross-examinatin, he says that he retired on

1-1-2008. He was appointed as Labour in 1973. That Form B

used to be filled bearing his signature. In 1987, he was

asked about his age. He had told his date of birth was

20-4-53. That he had come to know that his date of birth

was recorded as 1-1-48.

10. Management's witness Shri P.V. Satyanarayana

has stated in his affidavit of evidence that in Form B, date

of birth of workman was recorded as 1-1-48. The workman

4796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

was appointed on 21-5-73 at Surakachar Colliery. He claims

ignorance about date of birth recorded in Form B of the

workman. That service excerpts is to be filled by the

workman and there is no initial. The documents produced

on record Exhibit W-1, date of birth in Form PS-3 of workman

was recorded as 20-4-53. It is corrected to 1-1-42. In Exhibit

M-1, copy of Form B, date of birth is recorded as 1-1-42.

There is scoring of writing in letters. Exhibit M-2, the service

excerpts, age is recorded as 39 years. There is also scoring

over 25 years. In Exhibit M-3, date of appointment is shown

as 21-5-73. There is scoring in the date. Copy of Instruction

No. 76 is produced on record as Annexure P-2. Said

instruction provides for determination of age at time of

appointment in respect of matriculates, Non-matriculates

but educated, Ex-serviceman and Illiterate.

"Para-B provides Review determination of date of

birth in respect of existing employees. Para-B (ii)

provides wherever there is no variation in records,

such cases will not be reopened unless there is a

very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to

the notice of the Management. The Management

after being satisfied on the merits of the case will

take appropriate action for correction through

Determination Committee/Medical Board.

Para-C provides Age Determination Committee/

medical board for the above will be constituted by

the Management. In the case of employees whose

date of birth cannot be determined in accordance

with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(B)

above, the date of birth recorded in the records of

the company, namely, form B register, CMPF Records

and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as

final. Provided that where there is a veriation, in the

age recorded in the records mentioned above, the

matter will be referred to the Age Determination

Committee/medical Board constituted by the

management for determination of age."

11. The IInd party management did not refer the

dispute of age of workman to Age Determination committee

as provided in Clause "C" of Instruction No.76. The action

of the management is violative of Instruction No.76 and

therefore not legal. Accordingly I record my finding on

Point No. 1 in Negative.

12. Form B Register produced by IInd party

management be returned back.

13. In the result, award is passed as under;-

The action of the management in not referring the

dispute of date of birth of workman to the Age

Determination Committee is illegal.

Management is directed to refer dispute of date of

birth of workman to Age Determination Committee

as per Instruction No.76 within 15 days.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2012

dkñvkñ 1749.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,lñbZñlhñ ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 102@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@232@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 102/2004)

of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/7/2013.

[No. L-22012/232/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. Patnaik, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/102/2004

Presiding Officer Shri R.B. Patle

The Area General Secretary,

M.P.K.M.S(HMS),

Branch Jamuna, Shahdol

Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Jaumuna & Kotma Area of SECL,

PO Jamuna,

Shahdol

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of June, 2013

1. As per letter dated 9-9-2004 by the Government of

India,Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

232/2001-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the 125 workmen engaged through M/s

Teknomin construction Pvt. Limited by the

management of SECL for Amadand Block "B", J&K

Area for various activities in connection with open

excavation, walling, roofing and drivage of incline

shaft can be treated to have been engaged by the

management of SECL themselves and can be termed

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4797

as regular workers of SECL and are entitled for the

benefits available to the regular workers of the

management of principal employer i.e. SECL? If so,

from which date?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted Statement of Claim

at Page 5/1 to 5/10. The case of the Union is that workers

were engaged in Mining Operation resulting in production

of coal, including earth cutting, overburden removal, shaft/

hard stone cutting, drivage of stone drifts, roof supporting

haulage operator, pump operator, driller, lineman/mistri,

trammer, shuntman, explosive carrier, general mazdoor, drill

mazdoor, stone cleaner, black smith/hamer man/pick

sharpner, dresser, signal man, tyndal, bit sharpner etc. from

March 1995 at Bartarai Inclines of amadand Block B of

Jamuna Korma area of SECL. That the said work was of

prohibited category for engagement of contract labour and

therefore the workman be declared as employees of SECL.

Management denied said claim of the Union. Government

refused to make reference W.P. No. 5385/2002 was filed. As

per order dated 10-7-02 by Hon'ble High Court, Ministry of

Labour was directed to make reference. The workers were

employed in Coal Mining Operation for above activities.

That as per the provisions of Mining Act, excavation

includes in Mine. It is submitted that those persons

employed by IInd party were doing the mining operations.

The operations relating to development of mine. The

management of IIns part is liable to follow Section 48 of

Mines Act, Rule 77, 78 says that the IInd party is required

to maintain Form B, C, D, E register for attendance, issuing

identity cards, token for vocational trainings.

3. Union also requested directions for production of

documents-certificate of registration of contractors, Form

B Register of the workmen, record of vocational training

given by management, Attendance Register, Certified copy

of payment sheet, leave sick/overtime register. The Union

also refers to certificate date 1-2-85 issued by Director of

Mines Safety. It is contended that the worker engaged in

work of perennial nature. That Section 10 of Contract Labour

Act, 1970 prohibiting employment to contract labours in

certain categories. That Industry shall not employ labours

through contractors or engage contractor labours for job

of permanent and perennial nature as per NCWA Clause

11.5.1. That the workers completed 190 days attendance/

continuous service as per Section 25-B of I.D. Act acquire

status of regular employee. The contractor is bound to pay

minimum statutory wages and minimum wages as per the

work order. On such grounds, it is submitted that workman

were entitled to become members of Employees Provident

Fund and to get the benefits. The workers were engaged

for prohibited nature of work. The management cannot

engage contract labours. Minimum wags were not paid to

125 workers shown in the list. It is prayed that all those

workers can be termed as regular workers of SECL.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing the

claim of Union. Preliminary objection is raised that Union

has raised claim for regular employment in respect of 125

persons with the Principal employer SECL. The terms of

reference shows that these claimants were engaged

through contractor Teknomin Construction Pvt. Ltd. The

workers of the contractors are not members of Union

therefore Union has no locus-standi to file reference. That

the Ministry did not consider reference fit for adjudication

vide order dated 10-7-2002. Writ Petition No. 5385/2006

was filed by Union. As per order dated 4-12-2003 the

directions were issued to appropriate government to refer

the dispute. That the Union has not produced documents

to substantiate dispute.

5. That appointments in Coal Industry is governed

by certain statutory rules and regulations. Persons in Coal

Industry has to undergo entire procedure prescribed for

appointment. That the work of mine requires certain earth

work. The management issued tender notice dated 21-12-

94 for excavation and other works for amount of Rs.

97,31,543/-. The duration of work was 14 months. It is

submitted that the work was allotted to Teknomin

Construction Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. It is denied that the said

work is of perennial nature or falls within definition of

Mining. The terms of contract provided for use of

machinery equipments by contractor, to comply provisions

of mine regulations and provisions of Mines Act, Minimum

Wages Act and other regulations. The management of SECL

is registered Principal employer. In the certificate of

registration issued under Contract Labout (R&A) Act, the

employees are engaged by the contractor. All the material

contentions of Union are denied that those workers are

entitled to status of regular employee. IInd party prays for

rejection of reference.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the 125 workmen

In Negative

engaged through M/S

Teknomin construction.

Pvt. Limited by the management

of SECL for Amadand Block

"B", J & K Area for various

activities in connection with

open excavation, walling, roofing

and drivage of incline shaft can

be treated to have been engaged

by the management of SECL

themselves and can be termed as

regular workers of SECL and are

entitled for the benefits available

to the regular workers of the

management of principal employer

i.e. SECL.

4798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(ii)

If so, to what order as

Relief prayed by

to relief?"

workmen are

rejected.

REASONS

7. As per the terms of reference, the Union has raised

dispute that 125 workmen shown in the list were engaged

through contractor M/s. Teknomin Construction Pvt. Ltd.

by the management of SECL and were regular workers of

SECL and entitled to consequential benefits from the

Principal Employer. The claim of Union is denied by the

management of IInd party. However the Union has not

adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim. On 16-10-

2012, Ist Party Union is proceeded exparte observing that

workman is absence since long shows that the workman

has no interest in the case. Management filed affidavit of

its witness Mohantry working as Personnel Manager.

Management's witness has stated that management had

applied for production of documents i.e. constitution of

the Union, membership register for the period 1995 to 1997,

copy of audited balance sheet, order of appointment of the

claimants, order of termination of claimants, particulars of

period of work, date of engagement and termination,

particulars of wages received and Name of Supervisor under

whom the claimants alleged to have worked. Union has not

produced any of those documents. That all workers were

engaged by contractor. The contractor M/s. Teknomin

Construction Pvt. Ltd. was allowed contract for value of

Rs. 97,31,543/- duration of work was 14 months. Most of

the contentions of the management in written Statement

are covered in affidavit of witness. That contractor was

responsible for compliance of statutory provisions,

payment of wages etc. Management witness is not cross-

examined. His evidence remained unchallenged. I donot

find reason to disbelieve his evidence. Union has not

examined any witness in support of his claim neither any

workers are examined as witness to substantiate the claim.

Besides affidavit of management's witness, the IInd party

has produced documents Exhibit M-1 Letter of Ministry of

non- consideration of dispute for adjudication, M-2 Tender

of work, M-3 copies of agreement, M-4 is work order and

M-5 is copy of licence under. C.L. (R&A) Act.

8. The evidence on record produced by management

and Union has not produced any evidence that claim of

Union that 125 contract labours should be treated as regular

employees of IInd party cannot be accepted. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

The claim of Union that 125 workmen engaged

through M/s. Teknomin construction Pvt. Limited

by the management of SECL for Amadand Block "B",

J & K Area for various activities in connection with

open excavation, walling, roofing and drivage of

incline shaft cannot be treated as regular employees

of the IInd party SECL.

Relief prayed by Union is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1750.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,eñ lhñ

,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&22012@246@2004&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

dispute between the management of Mahanadi Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/07/2013.

[No. L-22012/246/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 24/2005

Date of Passing Order-6th May, 2013

Between:

The Chief General Manager,

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

Talcher Area, PO. Dera Colliery,

Dist. Angul.

The General Manager (Administration)

MCL, Burlal.

................1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Mahenswar Naik,

Qr. No. G.M. (T) B/22, Po. Dera Colliery,

Dist. Angul.

......2nd Party-Workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4799

Appearances:

None

...

For the 1st Party-

Management No. 1.

Shri Raghumani Das

...

For the 1st Party-

Sr. Legal Inspector.

Management No. 2.

Shri Maheswar Naik.

...

For himself the 2nd

Party-Workman

ORDER

Case taken up today. Authorized representative for

the 1st Party-Management No. 2 and the 2nd Party-workman

in person are present. None is present for the 1st Party-

Management No. 1.

2. It has been stated on behalf of the parties that a

memo along with settlement in Form-H has been filed on

the last date. The 2nd Party-workman agrees to the terms

and condition set-out in the settlement and has signed the

memo of settlement in Form-H.

3. In view of the settlement filed by the parties the

reference is decided as per the terms and conditions of the

settlement which shall be binding on the parties and shall

part of the order.

4. The dispute between the parties is decided

accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1751.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,;j

bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1 eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 1@23 dk 2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk

29@04@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 11012@6@2001&vkbZñvkjñ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013

S.O. 1751.—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/

23 of 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management

of M/s. Air India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 29/04/2013.

[No. L-11012/6/2001-IR(CM-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

Present: JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/23 of 2001

Parties:Employers in relation to the management of

Air India Ltd.

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party no. 1. :

Ms. Geeta Raju, Adv.

For the first party no. 2. :

Mr. Nabar, Adv.

For the Uniion

Mr. M.B. Anchan, Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 19th day of March, 2013

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise 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 the reference given in the

schedule are as follows:

^^D;k eqEcbZ etnwj la?k dh ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM eqEcbZ ds

izca/kra= ls ekax fd mDr izca/kra= esa Jh lhrkjke ch ?kkMxs

VªkaliksVZ ,aM yscj dksUVªsDVj ds ek/;e ls fu;ksftr Jh vfuy

foVBy <sjs ,oa lwph esa fn, x, vU; 42 deZdkjksa dk ,vj

bafM;k dk fu;fer deZdkj ekuk tk;s rFkk mUgsa muds inksa ij

iw.kZ osru lfgr muds gVk;s tkus dh rkjh[k ls iqu% LFkkfir

fd;k tk;s] mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn gka] rks mDr deZ&dkj

fdl jkgr ds ik= g®\**

2. According to the statement of claim filed by

Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred to as the

Sangh) M/s. Sitaram B. Ghadge (hereinafter referred to as

the First Party no. 2) is the contractor and Air India

(hereinafter referred to as the First Party No.1) is the

principal employer of the concerned workmen. Though

the nature of work of loading, unlading and other

incidental work done by the workmen is of perennial nature

the contractor and the principal employer are committing

unfair labour practice by not employing the workmen on

a regular basis. The services of the workmen have been

terminated by the First Party No. 1 and the First Party No.

2 without following due process of law. Since the workmen

have been performing perennial nature of work they are

entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and

continuity of service.

4800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. The First Party No. 1 has filed written statement

wherein it has stated that the workmen are Mathadi Workers

engaged by M/s. S.B. Ghadge and they are covered under

Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers

(Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and

the said Act does not cover the First Party No. 1. According

to the written statement the First Party No. 1 issued tenders

for supply of Trucks/Mathadi workers to deliver drums

and for shifting heavy office furniture on need basis. M/s.

S.B. Ghadge was then given the said contract. The contract

entered into with the First Party No. 2 did not amount to

regular contract and it was based on need that might arise

once or twice in a week. The payment was made to the First

Party No. 2 as per the terms and conditions of the contract

and the First Party No. 1 had no direct control over the

workmen. The workmen were required mainly for shifting

heavy furniture and for loading/unloading work for which

the First Party No. 2 used its own transport and once the

work was over which lasted only for a maximum period of

one hour the workmen did not remain in the premises of the

First Party No. 1 the First Party No. 1 never engaged the

workmen. The First Party No. 1 has, therefore, prayed that

the reference be rejected.

4. The Sangh has filed rejoinder wherein it has

reiterated its stand.

5. According to the written statement filed by the

First Party No. 2 no workman has completed 240 actual

working days during the period of contract. The First Party

No. 2 was engaged by the First Party No. 1 for a period of

one year only and the nature of work was such that the

First Party No. 2 was not required to engage workers on

permanent basis. The Second Party No. 2 was required to

supply the labour for loading and unloading or such other

allied activities everyday but the volume of work never

remained the same and the supply of workmen depended

on the requirement of the First Party No. 1. The persons

employed by the Second Party No. 2 did not remain the

same because during the contract period on some days the

First Party No. 2 was not required to supply any labour. On

expiry of the contract the First Party No. 2 had no alternative

but to terminate the services of the workmen. The First

Party No. 2 has, therefore, prayed that the reference be

rejected.

6. The Sangh has filed affidavit of Sampatrao Daji

Kolekar who has been cross examined by learned counsels

for the First Party No. 1 and the First Party No. 2. The First

Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Atul Gangurde who has

been cross examined by learned counsels for the Sangh

and for the Party No. 2. The First Party No. 2 has filed

affidavit of S.B. Ghadge who has been cross examined by

learned counsels for the Sangh and for the First Party No.1

7. Heard Mr. Anchan on behalf of the Sangh, Ms.

Geeta Raju on behalf of the First Party No. 1 and Mr. Nabar

on behalf of the First Part No. 2.

8. The sole witness of the Sangh Sampatrao Daji

Kolekar has stated in his cross examination:

"It is correct to say that I was appointed by Mr. S.B.

Ghadge and not by Air India.......We were paid the

wages by Ghadge......It is correct to say that we were

terminated by Ghadge, Contractor.

It is clear from the above statement that the workmen

were appointed by the First Party No.2 and their services

were terminated by the First Party No.2 and wages to them

were also paid by the First Party No. 2. There is thus no

doubt that the workmen were not the employees of the

First Party No.1. As such the workmen have absolutely no

right whatsoever to be regularised or to be reinstated in

the services by the First Party No.1.

9. The question that whether the workmen are entitled

to be reinstated by the First Party No.2 is entirely beyond

the scope of this reference because the Central Government

has not sought an answer to that question as is clear from

the perusal of the schedule.

10. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record to

prove that the workmen worked for more than 240 days in

a year. The witness of the Sangh, Sampatrao Daji Kolekar

has admitted in his cross examination that Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-

6 are muster roll-cum-wage register and these two exhibits

do not establish that the workmen worked for 240 days in

one year.

11. It is thus clear from the above discussion that the

workmen have no right to be reinstated.

12. The workmen are, therefore, not entitled to any

relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1752.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSustesaV] ukFkZ

bZLVZu Lisl ,siyhds'ku lSaVj] f'kykax ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k xksgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

08@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@06@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@41@2008&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2008)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4801

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, North Eastern Space Application Centre,

Shillong and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/41/2008-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI ASSAM

Present:Sri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

The Management North Eastern Space

Application Centre, Barapani, Shillong,

Meghalaya.

-Vrs-

Their Workman, Sri Arbinson Thangkhiew,

Shillong.

Ref. Case No. 08 of 2008

APPEARANCES

For the Management

Mrs. R. Borah, CGC

For the Workman

Sri N.C. Kalita, Advocate.

Date of Award: 28.02.2013.

AWARD

1. The present Reference Case is arising out of Order

No. L-42012/41/2008-IR(DU); Dated: 18/07/2008, issued by

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

to adjudicate the issue as described in the Schedule below.

SCHEDULE.

"Whether the action of the management of Director,

North Eastern Space Application Centre in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Arbinson Thangkhiew, w.e.f

01/03/2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After registration of this Reference Case, notice was

served upon the parties who appeared and presented their

claim statement/written statement. Both the parties adduced

their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. I

have also heard argument at length from both the sides.

3. The brief fact of this Reference case is that the

workman namely Arbinson Thangkhiew was verbally

appointed as Casual employee in the capacity of Cleaner-

cum-Sweeper in the Office of the North Eastern Space

Application Centre, Umiam, Barapani, Ri Bhoi District,

Meghalaya (hereinafter called NESAC) with effect from

31st May, 2001 on daily wage @ Rs. 50/- per day.

Accordingly the workman had been performing his duty

as Cleaner-cum-Sweeper with effect from 31.5.2001

sincerely, faithfully and honestly as well as to the

satisfaction of all concerned. Unfortunately, on 01.03.2007

the workman was verbally sacked by the Director of NESAC,

Barapani without following the due process of law. It is

alleged by the workman that he was thrown away out of

job by the Director of NESAC, Barapani, Meghalaya most

arbitrarily without following the due process of law and

even without giving him any opportunity for hearing which

is violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 309 and 311 of the

Constitution of India, and it is a clear violation of natural

justice. Thereafter the conciliation proceeding took place

but no settlement could be arrived at. Accordingly the

Government of India referred this dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

4. The Management namely North Eastern Space

Application Centre (in short NESAC), contested the

proceeding by filing written statement denying the claim

of the workman. The Management in their W.S. has

contended inter-alia that the workman was temporarily

engaged as a Cleaner-cum-Sweeper in their Guest House

on daily wage basis. It is mentioned that the NESAC being

an Autonomous Body under the Administrative Control of

Space and is therefore required to follow the various Rules

and Orders issued from time to time by the Government of

India and in case of appointment on daily wage basis casual

labourer, the NESAC to adopt due Selection Process

obtaining the names of the intending candidates from the

local Employment Exchange; and as such, no selection

process was adopted since the workman was temporarily

casual worker. It is further alleged that the Management, in

such a situation could not confer temporary status to the

workman and hence, the question of regularization in his

service does not arise. It is admitted by the Management

that no attendance Register was maintained for the part-

time casual workers and the payment was being made to

them on the basis of the report submitted by the Care-

taker. Further case of the Management is that the zerox

copies of so-called attendance register annexed by the

workman are not genuine since the NESAC did not maintain

any register for part-time workers. According to the

Management as per the ban imposed by the Government

of India on the recruitment to the post of Dr.D in all Central

Government Offices the permanent appointment to the

concerned workman could not be done and the engagement

of the workman was discontinued with effect from 1.3.2007

and the cleaning work in the Guest House was entrusted to

a Contractor/Out sourcing Agency. The Management

denying of the statements made in para-4 to 12 of the claim

statement submitted by the workman prayed for dismissing

the Reference Case.

4802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

5. The workman examined 3 witnesses including

himself while the Management examined their

Administrative Officer, NESAC, Shillong.

6. Decision and reasons therefor :

In course of argument learned Advocate for the

workman submitted that the workman was engaged by the

NESAC as Cleaner-cum-Sweeper at Barapani, Meghalaya

with effect from 31.5.2001 as Casual Labourer on daily wage

basis @ Rs. 50/- per day and he worked till 01.03.2007

without any break. He contended that he was terminated

by the Management (NESAC) illegally and hence; the

termination order of the Management is liable to be set

aside and to allow him to continue his job along with the

back wages.

The learned Advocate for the Management, on the

other hand, emphatically argued that the workman,

admittedly, is a part time casual Cleaner-cum-Sweeper at a

daily wage basis @ Rs. 50/- and he was engaged verbally

by the Management without following any selection

procedure as per the procedure adopted by the local

Employment Exchange. So the question of regularization

does not arise and the case of the workman appears to be

devoid of merit. As such, plea of the workman is liable to be

rejected.

7. From the evidence on record it appears that the

workman Sri Arbinson Thangkhiew (W.W.1) was engaged

as Cleaner-cum-Sweeper under NESAC as casual worker

on daily wage @ Rs. 50/- with effect from 31.5.2001 to

1.3.2007. The workman was dis-engaged by the

Management verbally. In spite of his request for re-

engagement the Management refused to do so. The cross-

examination of the workman witness No.1 shows that no

formal letter was issued to him and he was appointed and

removed from service verbally. The workman also admitted

that his appointment was made without any

recommendation by the Employment Exchange; and that

he used to remain absent from duty. The workman has

submitted the copies of Attendance Register. Annexure-1

(proved under objection) which is a letter dated 18.2.2003

issued by the O.S.D., NESAC directing the casual labourer/

Safaiwala/Peon for attending office in time with caution for

taking serious view against the unpunctual works. He also

submitted the Attendance Register is respect of the workers

of NESAC, Annexure-13, (proved under objection). The

workman witness No.2 Edison Thangsang, who is one of

the co-worker of the workman, in his evidence stated that

the workman Arbibnson Thangkhiew joined the service on

31.3.2001 and no appointment letter was issued. He also

stated that the workman used to get his remuneration

@ Rs.50/- as daily wage and was terminated on 01.03.2007

without issuing any show cause notice upon the workman.

As such, the workman was illegally terminated by the

Management. He also mentioned that the O.S.D. used to

pay the wage @ Rs. 50/- per day and after retirement of the

O.S.D. the Care Taker of the Guest House would pay them

the same amount and they could receive the amount

mentioned in a Register maintained by the Management.It

is also admitted by the workman withness No. 2 that neither

any advertisement was made in the Newspaper before their

engagement nor their names were sponsored by the Local

Employment Exchange. The workman witness No.3,

Sri D.O. Ranjha, the then Joint Secretary to the Government

of Meghalaya who was appointed in the NESAC on

contractual basis as O.S.D. after his retirement; in his

evidence, mentioned that in the year 2000 he used to look

after both the Guest House and Office while he was In-

Charge of the Guest House. He engaged the workman

verbally as Cleaner-cum-Sweeper in the Guest House on

daily wage basis @ Rs. 50/- and Sunday and Holidays

were also included. He categorically mentioned that no

appointment letter was issued to the workman and in the

year 2003 he left the NESAC and thereafter what happened

he did not know. In his cross-examination the workman

witness No.3 also admitted the fact that no advertisement

was made in the local Newspapers nor their names were

sponsored by the local Employment Exchange before

engagement of the workman and they used to pay the

amount to the workman and acknowledging thereof they

received the amount and the Register was maintained by

the Management.

The solitary withness on behalf of the Management

has stated that he joined as Administrative Officer in

NESAC, Shillong on 3.7.2009 for which he did not know

the workman Arbinson Thangkhiew, however, he knew the

fact of the case. He mentioned that the workman was a part

time Cleaner/Sweeper in their Guest House on daily wage

basis and was purely temporary worker. Neither any

engagement letter was issued to the workman nor selection

process was initiated. He categorically mentioned that no

Attendance Register was maintained by them in respect of

part time/Casual worker; and he did not know when the

workman was engaged but the workman was terminated

on 01.01.2007 verbally. He also mentioned that from

01.01.2007 as per direction of the Government of India the

cleaning work was entrusted to Contractor for engagement

of persons from outsourcing agency and the workman was

asked to work under the contractor but he refused to do so

and stopped coming to office. Thus the workman is not

legally entitled to regularisation of his service. During his

cross-examination the Management witness No.1 said that

since they had no sanctioned post, so question of selection

process of Group-D does not arise and no Attendance

worker. He also added that Annexure-13 was not issued

from their office and the signature of the casual worker was

obtained as a signature of the casual worker was obtained

as a proof of acknowledgement in the voucher which is a

official document. He further said that no acquaintance

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4803

denied the suggestion tendered by the defence that some

Casual employees of Group-D were made permanent earlier.

He also added that since the workman was a daily part time

wage worker the question of maintaining procedure of

termination does not arise. The Management witness again

stated that the workman was informed verbally to work

under the Contractor since the Group-D staff were engaged

from Out Sourcing Agency as per Government policy.

8. On careful consideration of the evidence of both

the sides along with the pleadings and having regard to

the submission of learned counsel for both the parties it is

found established that the workman was engaged by the

Management (NESAC) purely on casual basis @Rs. 50/-

per day and no formal advertisement was made nor the

names of the workman was sponsored by any local

Employment Exchange before his engagement. It is also

found admitted that the workman used to remain absent

from his duty. Although the workman has produced some

zerox copies of documents such as, Attendance Register

(Annexure-13), some representations, some letters

purported to be issued by the Management and some other

concerns, those documents were not proved in the court

as per provision of law and as such, the same are not

admitted. The evidence of the Management withness No.1

clearly shows that the service of the workman was

discontinued as per verbal order on 1.7.2007 due to the

implementation of new policy of the Government restraining

recruitment to the Group-D Post. Thus is revealed that the

workman is purely a casual worker on daily wage basis and

it is admitted fact that the workman used to remain absent

from his duty. The Annexure-I produced by the workman

shows that the order was issued by the O.S.D. on 18.2.2003

prescribing the office hour with caution for maintaining

punctuality but the said letter does not bear any official

seal. The Annexure-13 the copies of the so-called

Attendance Register produced by the workman is also

found not proved as per provisions of Evidence Act as

such, the Annexure-1 and Annexure-13 do not confer any

right to the workman for claiming regularization. Further

the workman was engaged by the management verbally

without following the Recruitment Rule since in case of

appointment to the post of casual worker the name of the

candidates should be sponsored by local Employment

Exchange and the advertisement also should be published.

In the instant case the Management did not follow the

above statutory provisions for recruitment and no

appointment shall be made violating the Recruitment Rules.

9. Mr. N.C. Kalita, learned Advocate for the workman

in course of his argument took the plea that the workman

was appointed as casual worker by the Management on

daily wage @ Rs. 50/- which was at per with the wage rate

of Rs.50/- as fixed by the Government of Meghalaya; and

subsequently the Government of Meghalaya enhanced the

wage rate to Rs. 70/- per day; and in such circumstances

the workman pressed the Management for enhancement

of their daily wage, while the Management dis-engaged

the workman as such, the action of the Management is

arbitrary and illegal which requires to be interfered. From

the evidence on record and the documents submitted by

the workman I find nothing to show that due to the

approach by the workman for enhancement of wage the

Management dis-engaged him. Further,none of the

workman witness including himself uttered a single word

as to the cause of dis-engagement due to the approach of

the workman for enhancement of daily wage from Rs. 50/-

to Rs.70/- per day. As such, I find no reason to entertain

the submission of learned Advocate for the workman.

Mrs. R.Bora, learned Advocate for the Management during

her submission pointed out that in case of engagement of

the workman the question of regularization does not arise

since the workman was engaged purely on casual as well

as part time basis. She also argued that due to ban imposed

by the Government of India in respect of appointment to

the Group-D post Management does not have any legal

right to appoint any person in Group-D post permanently

and consequent upon dis-engagement of the workman the

works of Cleaner-cum-Sweeper was entrusted to the

Contractor; and at that time the workman, in spite of asking

him to join his work under Contractor refused to do so. As

such, the workman has no right to claim for re-engagement

as well as regularisation. In support of her contention Mrs.

R. Bora, learned Advocate relied upon a decision of the

Apex Court in State of Karnataka-vrs-Umadevi reported in

(2009) 4 SCC 1 wherein it has been emphasized that casual

workers or other categories of fortuitous employees service

rendered on a fixed pay or on daily wage though may have

continued for long, will by itself not vest in an incumbent a

right for regularization. Learned Advocate for the

Management also relied on Writ Petition (C) 1595/2007,

Amarjit Kaur-vs-The Union of India & Ors, wherein it has

been observed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court that in

case of temporary daily wage earner, his regularization of

service can not be recognized legally.

10. In this context let me refer the following decision

of the Apex Court:- Reported in (2009) 4 SCC, State of

Karnataka and Ors. - vs-G.V. Chandrashekhar, wherein the

Apex Court has reiterated that ad hoc appointment even if

it continues for a long time can not be ordered to be

regularized.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal-vs-State of Haryana,

published in (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it has been observed

"equality Clause as enshrined in Article 16 mandates that

every appointment to the public post or office should be

made by opon advertisement so as to enable all eligible

persons to complete for selection on merit.''

11. From my above discussion and having considered

the evidence as discussed above as well as taking into

4804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

consideration the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court and Hon'ble Gauhati High Court I am constrained to

hold that the case of the workman fails and as such, no

relfe can be granted to the workman. Accordingly the

Reference is answerred in negative.

ORDER

The Reference stands disposed of without any cost.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per provision of

law.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

28th day of February, 2013 at Guawahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer,

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1753.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj ,aM

Mhu] xhjhuxj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS?kksfxd

vf/kdj.k] iq.ks ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ¼vkbZ-Vh-½ uñ 57@2004½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&14011@13@1997&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award [Ref. (IT) No. 57/

2004)] of Industrial Tribunal, Pune as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between The Director

& Dean, Girinagar and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 28.06.2013.

[No. L-14011/13/1997-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No.57/2004

Between :

The Director & Dean,

Indian Armament Technology,

Girinagar,

Pune - 411 025.

.. First party.

And

The Secretary

Pune Zilla Mazdoor Sangh,

185, Shaniwar Peth,

Pune - 411 030.

.. Second party.

CORAM

: Shri M.G.Choudhary, I/c Presiding

Officer.

ADVOCATES

Smt. Sandhya Londhe-Deshpande,

Advocate for first party

Shri A.Y.Shikarkhane,

Advocate for second party

A W A R D

(Date : 01-04-2013)

Government of India through Ministry of Labour in

exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-

section (1) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

referred the industrial dispute between abovenamed parties

by reference order dt.2-9-2004. The industrial dispute/the

demand of the second party mentioned in the Schedule to

the Reference Order which reads as under :

“Whether the action of the management of Institute

of Armament Technology, Girinagar, Pune in not

regularizing the services of 18 workmen (List

enclosed) of the officer's mess is legal, proper and

justified ? If not, to what relief the said workmen are

entitled to and from which date and what other

directions are necessary in the matter ?”

2. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal,

the second party union appeared in the matter and filed

Statement of Claim at Exh.U-6 and contended that the first

party designs, manufactures and stores various types of

engineering products in the workshops and other facilities

located in its premises. It is producing various goods with

the help of power and employs more than 50 employees

and is a factory under the Factories Act, 1948. It is also an

industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. According to

second party, the appropriate Government in respect of

the first party is the Central Government and the provisions

of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Minimum Wages Act,

Employees Provident Fund Act and the Scheme and the

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act are also

applicable to it. According to second party, apart from the

manufacture as above the first party is also a research

institute. It also trains civilian and defence officers in

various techniques and runs regular courses. According

to second party, the first party is controlled by the Defence

Research and Development Organisation of the Central

Government. The first party runs an Officers Mess in its

premises which has also lodging facility. This mess is run

as a statutory facility as per Section 46 of the Factories

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4805

Act, 1948. According to second party, the first party

employs the permanent workmen in the said Officers Mess

whose names are mentioned in the Statement of Claim.

According to second party, in addition to permanent

workmen and as there is sufficient work year round the

first party is employing about 40 workmen since more than

15 years in the capacity of Room Attendants, Waiters,

Washers, Cook and Helpers. These workmen cannot enter

the premises of the first party unless they are issued entry

pass and the first party has been issuing them with entry

pass every month for all these years. According to second

party, this proves that the first party requires their services

continuously and on regular basis. It is also contention of

the second party that some of these workmen are provided

with rent free quarters on the premises by the first party.

The first party provides water and electricity to these

quarters and deducts Rs.90 p.m. from the wages of these

workmen towards the charges for the same. According to

second party, the workmen are doing the same work as

done by the permanent workmen but they are exploited like

bonded labour by the first party. They are forced to work

for long hours, abused and on top of it are paid wages of

Rs. 500 to Rs. 600 p.m. According to second party, the first

party does not pay them minimum wages fixed by the Central

Government for unskilled labour nor pay them wages at

the rate of 1/3rd of the wages paid to permanent workmen

as per the directive of the Central Government. According

to second party, the first party is flouting every Labour

Laws even after the breach were pointed out by the

Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central). According

to second party, the 18 workmen named in the Reference

order have been working with the first party in the Officers

Mess in various capacities such as Cook, Waiter, Room

Attendant etc. for more than 15 years or so and are provided

with quarters on the premises. They are in continuous

service and are sometimes given artificial breaks. That

work is available round the year yet they are exploited by

the first party as begars as stated above. According to

second party they are not made permanent and given

benefits of permanency like the employees mentioned in

Para.3. According to second party the first party has

engaged in unfair labour practice under item I(10) of Fifth

Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by employing

them as casual for years together with a view to deprive

them of the benefits of permanency. On these background,

lastly requested to allow the present reference.

3. The first party in the written statement at

Exh.C-10 contended that the contents of statement of claim

are illegal, false and wrong hence it is totally denied by the

first party. According to first party, the second party has

no locus-standi to file this reference since there is no

employer-employee relationship existing between the first

party and the second party. According to first party there

was/is no service contract implied or in writing between

first party and second party. At no point of time, the second

party had been appointed for any of the sovereign

functions/activities carried out by the first party. Thus

according to first party, the present dispute is not an

industrial dispute as per settled legal position and this

Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present

dispute. According to first party, the second party has not

given any prior notice to this institute or any of its officer

u/s 80 of CPC while making to Govt. Officers/Govt. Institute

as a party in the case. According to first party the workmen

under the reference are not the workmen of the first party.

It is denied that first party is the factory and industry as

alleged. According to first party Institute of Armament

Technology is training establishment of Defence Research

& Development Organization under the Ministry of

Defence, Government of India. It imparts training/education

on defence technology related to the subject of officers of

the Armed Forces the civilian officers of Ministry of

Defence and also to the foreign students of friendly nation.

The first party is manufacturing and storing various types

of engineering products in workshop is not correct.

According to first party, through the designing of

engineering tools/equipments for purely academic and

research purpose is carried out on need basis under

Mechanical Engineering Section under the supervision of

specialists/Research Officers. The Institute is not engaged

in producing any goods as per the decision of the Ministry

of Labour, Govt. of India that since the Institute of Armament

Technology is carrying out sovereign function to cater the

training needs of the Armed Forces of India, the provisions

of I. D. Act are not applicable to the Institute. It is denied

that provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, Minimum

Wages Act, Employees Provident Fund Act and Scheme

and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act are

applicable to first party. According to first party, it being

the first party Central Government Establishment, it is

administrated, run supervised and controlled by Defence

Ministry of Central Government Funds and the same are

provided by Central Government and its audit is done by

Central Government and terms and service conditions of

first party are governed by Central Civil Services Rules.

According to first party, the Officers Mess is purely a hostel

facility run primarily on the contribution of its members

and managed by a Managing Committee appointed by the

General body of the Officers' Mess members. There is no

provision to run the Mess as a statutory/non statutory/

department canteen. The persons are employed in officer's

mess purely on casual basis by the Officers Mess as private

arrangement. These ad-hoc workers were/are not paid out

of any contingency grant for which there is no provision

under the existing Govt. rules/orders. According to first

party, the second party is well aware of working under the

supervision and control of management committee of the

Officers Mess had not made the said committee a necessary

party to present reference with malafide intention of

suppressing material facts. According to first party, it has

not employed any workmen as mentioned in the reference

4806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

order and they are employed by the Officers Mess which is

purely a hostel facility run on the subscription from the

members of the said Mess and managed by the

Management Committee appointed by the members of the

Officers Mess and the first party has nothing to do with

the affairs of the said Mess and is not concerned with the

Mess. According to first party, they were provided

accommodation in Mess servant quarters by the

Management Committee of the Officer's Mess and not by

the first party and this is an issue between Officer's Mess

and its workmen and first party does not have any concern

with the workmen to do about it. It is denied that first party

has engaged in unfair labour practice as alleged. It is denied

that the workmen are entitled for permanency as claimed.

It is denied that they are entitled to get the benefits of

permanency as claimed. It is denied that they are working

since 15 years as alleged and also requested to dismiss the

reference.

4. Following recast issues are framed by my learned

predecessor at Exh.O-7 which arise for my determination :

(1)

Whether the reference as framed is tenable under

law ?

(2)

Whether the court has jurisdiction to try and entertain

present reference?

(3)

Whether the first party establishment is an industry

within the meaning of I. D. Act ?

(4)

Does the second party employees prove that 18

employees involved in the matter were in continuous

service of the first party ?

(5)

Whether the second party is entitled for

regularization of 18 employees involved in the matter?

(6)

If yes to what extent ?

(7)

In what manner the reference is answered ?

5. My findings to above points, for the reasons

recorded below, are as under —

(1) No

(2) Yes

(3) Yes

(4) No

(5) No

(6) No

(7) Reference is answered in negative as per order

below.

REASONS

6. Both the parties have produced documents on

the record. Documents produced by the second party

with list Exh.C-6 are the xerox copies of various certificates

and identity card issued by Officers Mess of the first party

to the workmen involved in the present reference whose

names are mentioned in the reference order. The second

party workmen who deposed before the Court have stated

about this certificate issued by Officers Mess in their

examination-in-chief as such most of these certificates are

exhibited. The second party also produced documents

with list Exh.U-33 which are printouts of pages from the

website of first party. The first party has produced

documents with list Exh.C-15 and Advocate for second

party endorsed on the list Exh.C-15 that all documents may

be exhibited and accordingly these documents are exhibited

namely license under Factory Act of the first party, the

service book of the workmen mentioned in para.3 of the

statement of claim, Cash Book and General Ledger of first

party, Rules for allotment of residential accommodation in

first party, letter dt.31-12-87 from Sr. Adm. Officer-I to Mess

Secretary, letter dt.1-1-1988 from Mess Secretary to Sr. Adm.

Officer-I, letter dt. 26-8-1996 by Asstt. Commissioner of

Labour (C) to Shri K. N. Singh, Chief Controller (R & D)

DRDO, letter dt. 19 May 2005 Conversion of first party i.e.

Institute of Armament Technology, Pune under DRDO as

Deemed University. These documents are exhibited at

Exh.C-15/A to C-15/I.

7. The workmen mentioned in the reference order

are in all 18 and their demand which is mentioned in the

Schedule to the Reference Order is sent to this Tribunal for

its adjudication in respect of their claim for regularization

of service with the first party.

8. The second party, in order to prove their claim,

examined Mr. Namdeo Shankar Shelkande at Exh.U-9, K.

Natrajan at Exh.U-10, Shamsundar Sonaba Sable at Exh.U-

11, C. B. Shelke at Exh.U-12, N. V. Satyan at Exh.U-13,

Jagdish Prasad Ramdulari at Exh.U-14, K. Arutharan at

Exh.U-15, Uma Shankar Surve at Exh.U-16, Ankush Ranu

Jagtap at Exh.U-17, Raju Y. Chandane at Exh.U-18, K.

Perumal at Exh.U-19, Deoram Kondiba Ghadsingh at Exh.U-

20, Ashok Kaluram Jadhav at Exh.U-21, K. Vinayagam at

Exh.U-22, M. Sankar at Exh.U-23, K. S. Samkutti at Exh.U-

24, Ramesh Ganpat Kakade at Exh.U-25. These witnesses

of the second party in their examination-in-chief by way of

affidavit or by way of cross-examination have stated/

repeated the same thing as such to avoid the repetition,

sum and substance of their evidence has been commonly

considered. These witnesses are the second party who in

the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit stated that

they are in the employment of Officers Mess of the first

party but no appointment orders were given to them. They

have stated about their designation, date of birth and since

they are working with the first party in the Mess. They

have stated that prior to filing of the present case, they

were given military ration cards but that was taken back by

the first party and new ration cards were given, the first

party gave them one room/quarter and from their salary

Rs. 90 is deducted towards house rent/electricity/water

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4807

charges and they are not getting pay-slip and per year

identity cards were issued them. These witnesses have

stated that as per the directions of officers of first party

they are doing their work and getting their salary. Their

attendance is marked on muster and wages were paid on

the wage sheet by taking their signature on the wage

sheet. They have stated that they are getting one month's

leave with salary yearly however they do not get holidays

on 15th August and 26th January and 1st May. In cross-

examination these witnesses have stated that whatever

the certificates produced in the matter they were issued by

Mess for getting employment in other places and entry

pass was required for entry in the military premises and

that was issued by the Security Officer of the first party

and it was given for the specific period. These witnesses

have stated that they have no documentary evidence to

show that they are in the employment of the Mess. They

have admitted that there was no advertisement published

for the employment either from Mess or from first party; at

the time of joining the service no application was made to

the first party; they never received any letter of interview

from mess or from first party; they have not received any

letter of appointment from mess nor from first party. They

have admitted that the officers Mess Managing Committee

used to look after the work of mess. They have stated that

their names were not recommended to the mess or from

Employment Exchange, Social Welfare Department or

District Collector. They have admitted that the work

provided to them and the amount paid against that, was

acceptable to them therefore they accepted the employment

in the mess. They have admitted that they are not having

any allotment letter from the first party itself for the room

which they occupied; they had not submitted application

for room to the first party; they have not filed any document

to show that amounts of rent of room were deducted from

their salary. They have admitted that there are no sanctioned

post in the mess. They have further admitted that they are

receiving the payment in the mess from the Management

Committee. They have admitted that officers collected the

funds from their salary and then make their payment from

that fund. They have admitted that on request they gave

experience certificate by sympathy. They are not having

any identity card issued by first party. They have stated

that they have not filed any documentary evidence before

the Court to show that they have become the members of

Pune Zilla Mazdoor Sangh. Their signatures do not appear

on Exh.U-3 or Exh.U-6. They have admitted that there is

nothing on record to show that they have authorized to

the union to file the case before the Court on their behalf.

They have admitted that they have not produced original

documents on record. They have admitted that they are

performing the work as per the direction of Managing

Committee. The Mess Management Committee used to

give leave as well as wages to them. They have admitted

that Mess Management Committee is not made party before

this court nor before Labour Authority. They have admitted

that they never worked with first party and therefore not

entitled for any relief against first party. They have admitted

that they along with other colleagues had filed the case

before the High Court and said case was dismissed, that

case was for permanency. They have admitted that they

never worked since permanent posts were not available

with the mess or with the first party.

9. The second party has examined at Exh.O-24 Lt.

Comm. Sarveshchandra Sharma and in his examination-in-

chief he has stated that he joined the first party on 10th

July 2008 as a student. His rank in navy as Lieutenant

Commander. He has been nominated as Mess Secretary

from 3rd August, 2010 by the Vice Chancellor of first party.

He is not aware whether the dead stock and the premises

of the mess owned by the first party. He is not aware

whether Officers Mess is registered or not and registered

under any of the Act. He has no knowledge whether there

is any audit in Officers Mess. Government quarters are

made available to the employees of Officers Mess. No

Govt. ration has been provided to the employees of the

Mess. In cross-examination, he has stated that he joined

the first party as a student. He has admitted that the first

party is the Institute for Advancement of Training to the

Officers of all the three wings in respect of defence weapons

and advance technology. He has further admitted that this

education programme is for a fixed period and the strength

of the officers is different since after completion of the

training the new student used to attend the training. He

has further stated that in Officers Mess the contributions

from the officers student are collected to make the payment

of temporary workers working in mess. He is not aware

whether there is sanctioned post sanctioned by the

Government for Officers Mess. He has not collected any

information in respect of Officers Mess before deposing

in the Court. Questions were put to him about the 12

workers working in the Mess who are Government

employees. He has denied other suggestions given to him

in cross-examination.

10. The first party has examined Mr. T. V.

Ananthasubramaniam at Exh.C-26 who is working as Deputy

Registrar with the first party and in his examination-in-

chief by way of affidavit, he has stated/repeated the same

thing as per stand of the first party in the written statement.

In cross-examination he has stated that he is working with

the first party at Pune from 1st November 2010 as deputy

Registrar. He is not staying in the premises of first party.

He has stated about the documents produced by the

second party with list Exh.U-33 and he has stated that all

these information shown in 7 pages with list Exh.U-33 are

downloaded from website of first party which are exhibited

as U-34. He has stated that he has no personal knowledge

about the recruitment of 18 workers involved in the present

reference.

4808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

11. The Advocates for both the parties have stated

that they have filed their written synopsis of arguments in

the matter that may be treated as their written arguments.

The Advocate for second party filed his written synopsis

of argument at Exh.U-37 and in support of his argument he

has relied on the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Vs. Rajappa. On the other hand, Advocate for first

party has filed written synopsis of argument at Exh.C-40

and in support of her argument, she has relied on the case

law reported in (1) 2006 AIR SCW 1991 (S.C) between

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors.

(2) 2000 (84) FLR 732 (S.C.) between Union of India Vs.

Uma Maheshwari & Ors. (3) 2002, DGLS (Soft) Pg. 270

(S.C) between P.U.Joshi and others Vs. Accountant General,

Ahmedabad and others, (4)2001, DGLS (Soft) Pg.883 (S.C)

between Mahatma Phule Agricultural University Vs. Nasik

Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union, (5) 2007, DGLS, (Soft) Pg.1256,

between Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. Vs.

Chander Hass & Anr. (6) 2001 I CLR 574 (Bom H.C.) between

Patel Engineering Works Vs. Sri Santosh Kumar Rawool &

13 Ors. (7) 1992 (1) CLR 537 (S.C), between Delhi

Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi

Administration, Delhi & Ors., (8) AIR 1994 Pg.1638 (S.C)

between Madhyamik Siksha Parishad Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra

(9) 1997(1) CLR Pg.656 (S.C) between State of U.P. & Ors.

Vs. Ajay Kumar.

Considering the ratio of case law cited by the

Advocates for both the parties and considering the facts

of present matter, I am deciding this case.

12. Before touching to the merits of the matter, here

I would like to mention that the present reference is marked

to the Second Industrial Tribunal which is vacant and

charge of the Second Industrial Tribunal is given to First

Industrial Tribunal that is to me being Presiding Officer of

the First Tribunal, Pune. The President, Industrial Court,

Maharashtra, Mumbai, by letter dt.21-12-2012 (Exh.O-25)

directed this Court to dispose of the above reference as

early being reference is old. As both the parties have

submitted their written synopsis of argument, I am deciding

this reference on the basis of material on record.

13. I have already pointed out above that the

demand referred to this Tribunal between the above-named

parties for its adjudication. It appears that names of 18

workmen are mentioned in the list attached to the reference

order and on behalf of 18 workmen Pune Zilla Mazdoor

Sangh filed Statement of Claim at Exh.U-6 in the matter and

said Statement of Claim is signed and verified by one Sanjay

Safai, Secretary of Pune Zilla Mazdoor Sangh. Further it

appears to me that Vakalatnama of Advocate for second

party is filed at Exh.U-3. It is mentioned in Vakalatnama

that Secretary has authorized the Advocate on behalf of

the second party to act, appear and plead on behalf of

second party and there is a signature of Secretary on the

said Vakalatnama but his name, his designation and his

address is not mentioned. The second party himself has

pleaded in Para.2 of the Statement of Claim that first party

is controlled by Defence Research and Development

Organization of the Central Government. Admittedly the

present reference is made by Ministry of Labour and

Employment of the Central Government. It is mentioned in

the reference order dt.2-9-2004 that Central Government

declined to refer the dispute for adjudication vide letter

dated 6-7-1998 and in view of the order in Writ Petition

No.3214 of 1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at

Bombay, the Central Government has referred the dispute

for adjudication. The witness of the second party whose

names are mentioned in the reference order and those

workmen working with the Mess in their deposition have

stated that they have not filed any documentary evidence

to show that they are members of Pune Zilla Mazdoor

Sangh, they have not signed Exh.U-3 and U-6 i.e.

Vakalatnama and Statement of Claim. In my considered

view, whenever industrial dispute is there as defined u/s

2(k) in respect of general demand, the registered Trade

Union/Recognized Union functioning in the concerned

industry has right to represent the party. Admittedly as

mentioned above, the Central Government is an appropriate

Government for the first party industry as such it is

necessary for the second party union also to show that the

union which represents as the second party in this matter,

is a Trade Union as defined u/s 2 of the Trade Union Act,

1926 whose objects are not confined to one state the Central

Government and in relation to other Trade Unions the State

Government is an Appropriate Government. In this matter

the workmen themselves have deposed that they have no

documentary evidence to show that they are members of

the second party union. It is not contended by second

party in the present matter that the appropriate Government

in relation to the second party union i.e. Pune Zilla Mazdoor

Sangh is a Central Government and if object of the second

party union is to run the union within the State, in my

considered view, in that case, the second party union has

no locus-standi to prosecute the demand on behalf of the

workmen involved in the present reference. I have already

pointed out above that workmen involved in the present

reference have stated in their cross-examination that they

have no documentary evidence to show that they are

members of the second party union. I have already pointed

out that there is no evidence on record to show that second

party union is functioning with the first party or functioning

in more than one State, as such the second party union has

no locus standi to prosecute the demand on behalf of the

workmen in the present reference as such the present

reference itself is not maintainable.

Secondly as per provisions of law the permanent

workmen has right to raise the industrial dispute on behalf

of the temporary workmen/the workmen who are engaged

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4809

on contract basis or in relation to the workmen where there

exists employer-employer relationship between the parties,

if there is a recognized union or in absence of recognized

union, if registered trade union is there which is connected

with the persons of the employer that registered union or

the permanent workmen have right to raise the industrial

dispute on behalf of temporary employees or the employees

who have employer-employee relationship with the

employer and in the present reference, I find that these

workmen were engaged by the Officers Mess which is run

by the first party hence said mess is not registered which is

just an organization of the officers for that contribution is

collected from the officers to pay the wages of all the

employees working in the mess and to do other expenses

in the mess and first party is not at all connected with the

workmen involved in the present reference. The workmen

involved in the present reference in their cross-examination

have categorically admitted that they were not appointed

by the first party, they are not working with the first party

but they are working with the mess, their wages were paid

by the mess as such for all these reasons, it is clear to me

that there does not exist employer-employee relationship

between these workmen and the first party. Thus from

above discussion and observation, it is clear that present

reference as framed is not tenable under law and the second

party has no locus standi to prosecute the present reference

hence I answer Issue No.1 in the negative.

14. Once reference is made to the Tribunal under

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, there is no doubt

in my mind that the Tribunal has power and jurisdiction to

entertain the reference. The Tribunal is required to

adjudicate the dispute between the parties and pass the

award, as such I do not find any substance in the objection

raised by the first party in this respect that this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present reference.

In view of this, I answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative.

15. It is the contention of the first party even in

written statement that it is not an industry as the first party

is a Training Institute. However, it is on record that

Government of Maharashtra being appropriate Government

under the Factories act issued exemption license for the

purpose of Section 48 to the first party under the Factories

Act. It is on record that Central Government itself declared

the first party as Deemed University. It is on record that

students are taking training and it is an Educational

Institution. It is on record that workshop is there to train

the students and the said workshop is being operated with

the help of power and machine and the Advocate for second

party has rightly relied on the case law of Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in relation to case of Bangalore Water Supply

& Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa In view of the ratio of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said case law, I have

no doubt in my mind that first party being educational

institution declared as Deemed University by Central

Government is an industry within the meaning of Section

2(j) of the I. D. Act. In view of this, I answer Issue No.3 in

the affirmative.

16. I have already referred above that all 18

employees involved in the matter are working in the mess

and there is no employer-employee relationship between

the first party and the workmen involved in the present

reference and there is no iota of evidence to show that 18

workmen involved in the matter were in continuous service

of first party. The workmen involved in the present matter

are working in the Mess and to that effect they have given

admission in cross-examination that their salary was paid,

their wages were paid by the Mess, they have not submitted

any application to the first party employer, they have not

given any appointment order by the first party. They have

further admitted that they are not working on sanctioned

post and very important admission they have given in

cross-examination that they never worked with the first

party therefore they are not entitled for the relief against

the first party. This is the admission given by the witnesses

of the second party in their cross-examination and the

workmen themselves have stated in cross-examination that

they are not entitled for the relief against the first party. It

is further pertinent to note that in their cross-examination,

they have admitted that they never worked on sanctioned

permanent vacant post in the mess or with the first party.

All these admissions given by the witnesses of the

workmen involved in the present reference clearly show

that all 18 workmen involved in the present reference failed

to show that they have worked with first party continuously

and have also entitled for regularization in the employment

as claimed hence I answer Issue No.4 & 5 in the negative.

17. In view of my findings to above issues in

negative, it is clear that all 18 workmen involved in the

present reference are not entitled for the relief claimed as

mentioned in their demand shown in the Schedule to the

Reference Order, as such their demand is liable to be rejected.

In view of this, I answer Issue No.6 accordingly.

18. In view of my findings on above issues, it is

clear that reference is liable to be rejected however, I have

quoted above the demand which is referred to this Tribunal

for adjudication by the Central Government and after

reading the reference order what I find that it is expected in

the terms of reference that this Tribunal to suggest what

other directions are necessary in the matter. What I find

after perusal of the material on record that these workmen

mentioned in the reference order are working in the Officers

Mess of the first party for years together. After perusal of

the documents produced by the first party in the matter

with list Exh. C-15, Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Central informed in respect of these employees for payment

of Minimum Wages based on minimum wages declared by

Central Government for unskilled labourers. From this letter,

it is clear that even minimum wages were not paid to these

4810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

employees by the Mess. If the statement given by the

witness of workman in examination-in-chief i.e. the Secretary

of Mess at Exh. O-24 in the matter is seen, he is not aware

whether Mess is registered or not. In my opinion, when

first party has issued gate pass to the visitors for security

purposes or the security department of the first party issued

gate pass/identity card for security purposes to the

workmen involved in the present matter, in my opinion, it is

for the first party to take care to get the mess registered

with appropriate authorities, at least there should be

accountability for the same. I have already pointed out

that these workmen involved in the present reference are

working in the mess for years together. As pointed out

above as per letter issued by the Commissioner of Labour,

Central, they were not getting even minimum wages and at

least even it is expected that when first party institute is

run by Central Government it should be the model employer

and should extend at least all the benefits of Labour Laws

to the workmen viz. minimum wages, ESIC (if applicable),

protection under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923,

Employees' Provident Fund and miscellaneous provisions

Act, I. D. Act, safety and leave facility as provided under

Factories Act and it is expected that the services of these

workmen involved in the present reference shall not be

terminated without following due process law. In my

opinion, if these minimum protection under various Labour

Laws are given to these workmen involved in the present

reference at least these workmen can enjoy their life with

dignity. I hope the first party will seriously consider this

aspect and in view of the above observation mentioned

above to the issues involved in the matter, it is clear that

reference is liable to answer in negative and liable to be

rejected and hence I pass the following award.

AWARD

(1)

Reference (IT) No. 57 of 2004 answers in negative

and stands rejected.

(2)

No order as to costs.

(3)

Copies of this Award be sent to appropriate Govt.

for necessary action.

Pune

Date : 1.4.2013

M. G. CHOUDHARY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1754.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-7-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@128@2004&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd duly, 2013

S.O. 1754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 26/2008) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Luknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

23.07.2013

[No. L-41012/128/2004-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 26/2008

Ref. No. L-14012/128/2004-IR(B-I) dated 20.03.2008

BETWEEN

The Divisional Organization Secretary

Uttar Railway Karmchari Union

283/63, Kha, Garhi Kannora (Premvati Nigam), PO-

Manak Nagar,

Lucknow-226 001

(Espousing cause of Shri Vijay Bahadur)

AND

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer

Northern Railway

D.R.M. Office, Hazraganj

I.D. No. 26.2008

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/128/2004-IR (B-I) dated

20.3.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi 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 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the Divisional Organization

Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63, Kha,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4811

Garhi Kannora (Premvati Nagar), PO - Manak Nagar,

Lucknow and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,

Northern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Hazraganj, Lucknow for

adjudication to this Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya prabandhan uttar railway, lucknow dwara

Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma putra Shri Ram Adhar

Verma, diesel sahayak ko varsh 1983-84 ke panel

main samayojit na karke varsh 1991-92 ke panel

main samayojit karna uchit tatha nayasangat hai?

Yadi nahi, to karmkaar kis anutosh ko pane ka

adhikaari hai?"

3. The case of the workman's union is that the

workman, Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma was appointed on the

post of Cleaner on 20.12.76 and worked continuously till

03.09.81 when he has been retrenched illegally on 04.09.81.

The said retrenchment was set aside by the CGIT- cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur vide award dated 25.11.85 in I.D. No.

163/1983; and the workman, whose name finds reference at

serial No. 42 of the award, was ordered to be reinstated

with full back wages. It is further submitted that the workman

was reinstated on 04.08.83 during pendency of the I.D. No.

163/1983. The workman's union has submitted that the

appeal against said award was rejected by Hon'ble High

Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide order dated 14.3.91

and its review too was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2004.

Thereafter, the management preferred SLP before Hon'ble

Apex, which was also rejected vide order dated 03.01.2006.

It is alleged by the workman's union that the workman had

been regularized on the post of Loco Cleaner vide order

dated 30.08.91; whereas it included the other workmen

junior to him in the panel for the year 83-84 on the basis of

120 days working only. It has been submitted that the

workmen viz. Shri Amarjeet Singh and Abdul Aziz were

included in the panel for year 1992; but on the directions of

Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow vide order dated 26.04.93 and

25.04.2001 were included in the panel for the year 83-84;

likewise, the workmen viz. Shri Pratap Bahadur and Ahmad

Ali were included in the panel for the year 1992; but on the

directions of this Tribunal in I.D. No. 28/2004 and 12/2005

respectively, they have been included in the panel for the

year 83-84. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed

that the workman be included in the panel for the year as

other workmen, junior to him have been included.

4. The management of the railways has denied the

claim of the workman's union by filing its written statement,

stating therein that the workman was re-engaged in

compliance of award dated 19.02.87 of the CGI-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur and was absorbed and regularized as per

availability of regular vacant post, therefore, he cannot

claim the seniority over and above those persons, who

were given seniority by the order of the Hon'ble Central

Administrative Tribunal as well as by the order of

thisTribunal as the workman was not a party in the

respective cases. It has relied on Ramakotaiah vs. Union of

India 2007 (6) A.W.C. 6556 (S.C.); wherein Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the seniority of casual labour in the

railway is treated as temporary, but subsequently absorbed

in temporary/permanent cadre, to be reckoned from the

date of their regular appointment. Accordingly, the

management of the railways has prayed that the case be

rejected as devoid of merit.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder,

wherein he has stated nothing new apart from reiterating

the averments already made by his statement of claim.

6. The workman's union has filed documentary

evidence in support of the claim; whereas the management

has filed none. The workman filed its evidence and was

cross-examined by the authorized representative of the

management. On conclusion of the workman's evidence,

the case was fixed for managements' evidence on 28.09.2010;

but the management did not turn up for its evidence for

several dates in a long span of time, which led to closing

opportunity of evidence on behalf of the management vide

order dated 28.06.2012 and 26.07.2009 was fixed for

arguments. The management again did not turn for putting

forward its arguments or get the order dated 28.06.2012;

accordingly, heard authorized representative of the union

only and reserved the file for award, keeping in view the

reluctance of the management of contest their case and

long pendency of the case since 2008.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

arguments forwarded by the authorized representative of

the management and perused entire evidence on record.

8. It is the case of the workman that initially he was

illegally terminated and when he was reinstated on

04.08.1983, in the wake of award of the CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 163/1983, the management the

did not include him in the panel for the year 83-84 and

instead he was included in the panel for the year 91-92. It is

also the case of the workman's union that the management

included other junior workmen in the panel of 83-84 on the

basis of 120 day's working up to 30.09.81 and few similarly

situated other workmen viz. Amarjeet Singh & Abdul Aziz

in the compliance of orders of Hon'ble CAT and Shri Pratap

Bahadur and Ahmad Ali in compliance of this Tribunal's

order. He has substantiated its pleading with the help of

his oral evidence.

9. In rebuttal, the management has come forward with

pleadings that the re-engagement of the workman was in

compliance of award dated 19.02.87 of the CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur and was absorbed and regularized as per

availability of regular vacant post, therefore, he cannot

claim the seniority over and above those persons, who

4812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

were given seniority by the order of the Hon'ble Central

Administrative Tribunal as well as by the order of this

Tribunal as the workman was not a party in the respective

cases. The management has failed to corroborate its

pleadings through some cogent evidence.

10. The workman has sought empanelment in the

year 83-84 on the basis on120 days' working up to 30.09.81

as the other juniors were included. He has mentioned case

of one such junior viz. Abdul Aziz who had been included

in the panel for the year 83-84 in compliance of order of

Hon'ble CAT. It is noteworthy to mention here that Abdul

Aziz was terminated w.e.f. 4-10-1981 and was reinstated by

Labour Court and the same was confirmed by order dated

05.02.1990 Hon'ble High Court confirmed the same. On

reinstatement he was put for screening in the year 1991

whereas workmen junior to him had already been screened

and empanelled in the year 1982. Therefore, the workman

moved an original application before Hon'ble CAT,

Lucknow for inclusion of his name in the panel for the year

1982. Hon'ble CAT, vide their order dated 25.04.2001

directed the management as under:

"to include the name of the applicant in the panel

frame on the basis of screening held in the year

1982………. and place the name of the applicant

at appropriate place as Cleaner over and above

his juniors and to further accord him all the

consequential benefits."

The management challenged the above order of the

CAT before Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench vide writ

petition No. 68 (SB) of 2002, which was disposed of vide

their order dated 20.03.2006 as under.

"Once the termination order has been held to be

void and has been set aside with the specific direct

that the respondent shall be reinstated in service

with full back wages, his continuity in service

cannot be taken away nor he can be treated as new

appointee or fresh appointee after passing of the

order by the labour court, which was confirmed by

the High Court. Reinstatement in the aforesaid

circumstances would necessarily mean continues

service from the date of appointment, in this case

initial engagement, unless, of course, there were

some directive to the contrary by the Court. The

respondents had been taken into service only

because of the order passed by the labour court,

confirmed by the High Court, and therefore, he was

entitled to have all the consequential benefits

arising out of the orders passed by the Court. The

termination order having been quashed, the

respondent would also be entitled to seniority and

consequential benefits fixation of wages and salary

etc."

The management moved review petition No. 129/2006

of the above order dated 20.03.2006, which was dismissed

being not maintainable vide order dated 15.05.2006.

Thereafter, the management included the name of the

workman, Abdul Aziz in the panel for the year 1982.

11. Admittedly, the workman was working with the

management of Northern Railways since 20.12.76 and was

terminated w.e.f. 04.09.81 and was reinstated back in the

services in compliance of award dated 25.11.85 given by

the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 163/83;

and also in view of the fact that appeal against said award

vide writ petition No. 5901/1986 and its review vide review

petition No. 34/1991 before Hon'ble High Court were

dismissed vide orders dated 14.3.91 and dated 22.12.2004

respectively. The SLP No. 11945(c) of 2005 before Hon'ble

Apex Court too was dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2006.

The workman was reinstated on 04.08.83 during pendency

of industrial dispute before Labour Court and was included

in the panel for the year 1991-1992.

Thus, the main issue for consideration before this

tribunal is that as to whether the workman is entitled to be

included in the seniority list of 1981 of which he was

deprived consequent to his alleged illegal termination in

the year 1981? And if it comes out in positive then its

effect.

12. In the instant case the workman was not in the

service of the opposite party in the year 1981 due to illegal

termination of his services. The CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur setting aside the termination directed for

reinstatement with full back wages. This means that when

the Tribunal awarded for full back wages then it assumed

that the workman was in continuous service for the period

of termination. Once the order termination was held illegal

and the same was held to be void and has been set aside

by the Labour Court with the specific direction to the

management of the railways that the workman shall be

reinstated in service with full back wages then his continuity

in service cannot be taken away nor he can be treated as a

new appointee or fresh appointee after passing of the order

by the labour court, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble

High Court. Therefore, reinstatement in the aforesaid

circumstances would necessarily mean continuous service

from the date of appointment, in the instant case initial

engagement, unless of course, there were some directive

to the contrary by the Court. The respondent had been

taken into service only because of the order passed by the

labour court, confirmed by the High Court, and therefore,

he is entitled to have all the consequential benefits arising

out of the orders passed by the Court. The termination

order having been quashed, the workman shall also be

entitled to seniority and consequential benefits. Moreover,

the management has not turned up to substantiate its

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4813

version before this court; and it is settled law that mere

pleading are no proof.

13. Therefore, in view of the circumstances of the

case and discussions made hereinabove. I come to the

conclusion that the action of the management not including

the workman in the panel for the year 1983-1984 is not

proper and justified. Accordingly, the workman is entitled

to be included in the panel for the year 1983-84 over his

juniors after complying the procedure, within two months

from the notification of the award. Further, he shall also be

entitled for consequential financial benefits accrued to his

next junior.

14. Award as above.

Lucknow

12th June, 2013

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1755.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@100@2010&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2011)

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Uttar Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

23/07/2013.

[No. L-41011/100/2010-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 31/2011

Ref. No. L-41011/100/2010-IR(B-I) dated 14-03-2011

Between

Mandal Sanghatan Mantri

Uttar Railways Karmachari Union

283/63 KH, Gadi Kannora (Premvati Nagar)

PO-Manak Nagar, Lucknow-16

(Espousing cause of Shri Badri Prasad)

And

Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)

Northern Railway

Hazratganj,

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/56/2008-IR(B-I) dated 17-08-

2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Mandal Sanghatan Mantri, Uttar

Railways Karmachari Union, 283/63 KH, Gadi Kannora

(Premvati Nagar), PO-Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior

Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway,

Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to the CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the demand of union regarding Placing

Shri Badri Prasad S/o Shri Panchu, Callman, Locoshed,

Lucknow in the Penal of the year 1983-84 above his

junior, is Legal and justified? to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that

the workman, Badri Prasad had been appointed as cleaner

in the Loco-Shed, NR, Lucknow; and he had been retrenched

illegally on 04.09.81; which was agitated by him before

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur vide their award dated 19.02.87 and 25.11.85,

reinstated the workman with wages. It has been submitted

by the workman's union that the appeal before Hon'ble

High Court and Apex Court had been dismissed; and

accordingly, the workman had been reinstated on 03.08.83.

It has been alleged by the union that the railways regularized

the workman on 30.08.91; whereas the other juniors were

screened and regularized after including their names in the

panel for the year 1983-1984. Hence, the workman's union

has prayed that the workman be included in the panel for

the year 1983-84.

4. The management of the Railways has disputed the

claim of the workman's union by filing its written statement;

wherein it has mentioned that the present claim has been

raised by a unrecognized union and the same is time barred

by the limitation as the same has been preferred after a

long gap of about 25 years. It has further submitted that

4814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the workman was re-engaged in compliance of award of

the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and was absorbed

and regularized as per availability of regular vacant post,

therefore, he cannot claim the seniority over and above

those persons, who were given seniority by the order of

the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal as well as by

the order of this Tribunal as the workman was not a party

in the respective cases. It has relied on Ramakotaiah vs.

Union of India 2007 (6) A.W.C. 6556 (S.C.); wherein Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that the seniority of casual labour in

the railway is treated as temporary, but subsequently

absorbed in temporary/permanent cadre, to be reckoned

from the date of their regular appointment. Accordingly,

the management of the railways has prayed that the case

be rejected as devoid of merit.

5. After filing of the written statement the date was

fixed for the rejoinder and when no rejoined was filed the

case was fixed for parties' documents.

6. On the date fixed for parties' documents, the

authorized representative of workman's union submitted

that it does not want to pursue the present claim and wants

to withdraw the same as the workman concerned has since

retried and has received all financial benefits from the

management. He made an endorsement on the order sheet

to the effect that "is vaad se sambandhit shramik sevanivratt

ho gaya hai atah union vaad vaapas leti hai". This move of

the workman's union is not opposed by the authorized

representative of the management who endorsed 'not

opposed' in this context on the order sheet.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

and endorsement made by the authorized representative

of the union not to pursue the present industrial dispute

and withdrawal of the same and no opposition by the

authorized representative of the management, there is no

need to proceed further with the present industrial dispute.

8. Accordingly, 'no claim' award is given in the present

industrial dispute. No relief is required to be given to the

workman concerned as the Trade Union's does not want to

pursue their case for relief claimed. The reference under

adjudication is answered accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

Lucknow.

25th March, 2013.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1756.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dj 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,uñ,Qñ jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xqokgVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@24@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2008)

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Maligaon, N. F. Railway, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 1

6/07/2013.

[No. L-41011/24/2008-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM

PRESENT : Sri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute

Between:

The Management N.F. Railway, Mligaon,

Guwahati.

-Vrs-

Their Workman Sri Subhash Banik.

Ref. Case No. 12 of 2008.

Appearances.

For the Management:

Mr. K.C. Sarmah, Advocate.

For the Workman:

Mrs. M. Bora, Advocate.

Date of Award: 20.03.2013.

AWARD

1. This Reference case has been initiated upon the

Order No. L-41011/24/2008-IR(B-I); Dated: 30/09/2008,

issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute between

the management of N.F. Railway, East Mligaon, Guwhati-11

and the workmen Subhash Banik and five others. The

Sehedule of the Reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of N.F.

Railway by denying promotion to Sri Subhash Banik,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4815

Technician Gr. I (Turner) and five others as per Annexure,

is legal and justified? If not, what relief they are entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of this order from the Ministry this

Reference case has been registered and notices were served

upon both the parties. The Management N.F. Railway and

the workman Subhash Banik alone appeared and contested

the proceeding by filing their respective claim statements/

written statements along with relevant documents.

3. Be it mentioned here that the remaining 5 other

workmen namely Sri N.G. Mitra (UR), Shri Khagendra Singh

(UR), Sri Kaliram Baruah (UR), H.G. Rabha (ST) and Swapan

Das (UR) appeared through their General Secretary, Learned

Advocate and submitted written statement stating inter-

alia, that Sri N.G. Mitra, Khagendra Singh and Kaliram

Baruah were working as Turner and Sri H.G. Rabha and

Swapan Das were working as Machinist under Wagon

repairing Shed/Loco Running Shop at Pandu and after

rising this Industrial Dispute Sri Subhash Chandra Banik

retired from service on superannuation without getting his

due promotion and seniority. However, the ramaining 5

workmen as aforesaid got their promotion with seniority.

Hence, the aforesaid 5 numbers of workers have no further

grievances before the Tribunal. Thus only workman

Sri Subhas Ch. Banik remains in the fray.

4. The case of the Union in respect of the workman

Sri Subhash Banik, in brief, is that the workman was

appointed by the N.F. Railway Divisional Headquarter,

Maligaon as Khalasi on 12.12.65, afterward he was

promoted to Turner Grade II from Grade III on 19.7.82 and

thereafter to Turner Grade I on 28.01.1997 in Machine Trade.

He was working in the Wagon repairing shop as artisan

staff. In the mean time the Wagon reparing shop at Pandu

and Loco Running Shed were closed, as a result, the

workman along with other workers were deployed at

Lumding Division, N.F. Railway in Carriage and Wagon

Department. They were kept separately by creating

supernumerary posts and the establishments of those staff

are maintained at the Office of the Mechanical Section of

Chief Personal Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon. Workman

should have been merged with the seniority list of Carriage

Department but they were kept separately and hence, they

were deprived of their rightful expectations for getting

promotion in time. The workman Subhash Banik lastly

served as Technician Grade-I (Turner) under Senior C.D.O.,

Guwahati, N.F. Railway under Chief Mechanical Engineer,

N.F. Railway Maligaon, and he was on the verge of

promotion to the rank of Senior Technician in the scale of

pay Rs. 5000—8000 the post of which was lying vacant

since December, 2005 under Senior C.D.O., Guwahati. The

workman being the senior most person in the Trade deserve

to be promoted against the existing vacancy created upon

the superannuation of Shri S.N. Das, Senior Technician on

31.12.2005. Due to non fulfillment of legitimate expectation

by the Management in spite of numerous correspondences

made by the workman in this regard and pointing out various

anomalies and discrimination done to him depriving his

promotional aspects caused irregularities in the services

of the workman and grievances were ventilated through

representation and written appeal before the Management.

Which did not care to reply a single letter ever to the Rail

Mazdoor Union and in this way the workman retired on

superannuation on 30.09.2007 without getting promotion

to the next higher rank which should have been effected

with effect from 01.01.2006. The matter was taken up with

the higher authority of N.F. Railway, Railway Board, New

Delhi and for not getting any fruitful result it was referred

to the Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati for

reconciliation. But the reconciliation failed because of non

appearance of Management and hence, the present

Reference.

5. The Management of N.F. Railway vehemently

opposing the contention of the Union submitted their

written statement stating, inter-alia, that the Reference is

ot maintainable in proper form and in law as well as in fact,

which is liable to be dismissed. The Management averred

that the workman along with other staff were separated by

creating supernumerary posts and the establishment of

those staff were maintained in the office of the Mechnical

Section, Chief Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon

due to closure of Wagon Repairing Shop, Pandu; and the

workman were deployed in Coaching Depot on utilizing

basis and were kept separately by creating supernumerary

post in the establishment of those staff as they were kept

separately creating supernumerary post the question of

merger with the Coaching Depot does not arise. As such,

the contention of the workman that due to non merger the

promotional aspects of this present workman along with

others was frustrated and they were deprived of their rightful

expectation is denied by the Management. Further case of

the Management is that in order to fill up the post Senior

Technician (MCM) in scale Rs. 5000 to Rs. 8000 eligible

candidates from Machinist Grade-I in the scale of Rs. 4500

to Rs. 7000 and Turner Grade-I (Tech. Grade) in Scale Rs.

4500 to 7000 were taken; and the number of Staff in the

grade of Machinist Gr. I was only 3, Turner (Tech. Gr.I) was

only 2. The Machinist category Sri H.G. Rabha (ST) was

senior most being his date of promotion to the grade was

20.12.93 and in the category of Turner/Gr.I (Tech. Gr. I)

Sri Subhash Ch. Banik was senior most being the date of

promotion to the grade was 01.10.1997; and when combined

seniority list was prepared with these two categories Sri.

H.G. Rabha (ST) Machinist Gr. I became the senior most

and the post of Sr. Tech. (MCM) in grade Rs. 5000 to

Rs. 8,000 was filled up by Sri H.G. Rabha (ST) on the basis

of suitability Test. As such, there is no anomalies and

violation of existing norms of promotion in respect of Sri

Subhash Ch. Banik.

6. The workman examined 2 witnesses including

himself while the Management examined one Swapan

4816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Chakrabarty, the Head Clerk, Personnel Branch, C.P.O.

Office, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati.

7. Decisions and reasons therefore:

Let me discuss the evidence of both the sides.

According to the workman Subhash Banik, (W.W.1), he

was appointed as Khalasi on 12.12.65 in the N.F. Railway

Division Headquarter, Maligaon and was deployed in

Wagon Repairing Shop at Pandu. Afterwards he was

promoted to Turner Gade-II from Grade-III on 1982 and

thereafter Turner Grade-I on 28.10.1997 under the Chief

Mechanical Engineer, Maligaon and this contention is

found to be admitted as it reveals from the W.S. submitted

by the Management. Subsequently the establishment

Wagon Repairing Shop at Pandu was closed while the

W.W.1 was deployed in the Carriage Wagon Department

of N.F. Railway. The W.W.1 along with other surplus staff

were kept separately by creating supernumerary Posts and

the establishments of those staff were maintained in the

office of Mechanical Section of Chief Personnel Officer,

N.F. Railway, Maligaon. Lastly, he served as Technician

Grade-I of Turner category under the Chief Mechanical

Engineer, N.F. Railway Maligaon and he was the senior

most Technician and was fit to be promoted to senior

Technician in the Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 the post of which

was lying vacant since December, 2005 under Senior C.D.O,

Guwahati. The W.W.1 being the senior most person in the

Trade deserves to be promoted against the existing vacancy

after Sri S.N. Das, Senior Technician, who retired on

31.12.2005 and his expectation to get promotion with effect

from 1.1.2006 could not be fulfilled by the Management for

unknown reason. Instead of Sri H.G. Rabha, Machinist

Grade-I has been promoted as Master Crafts Man in a slot

which is against the provision of Rules. He further stated

that there can not be any post of Master Crafts Man in the

Machinist Trade Grade-I according to Railway Rule, but

for the purpose of promotion Machinist Trade and Turner

Trade was amalgamated violating the Rules and also

depriving him from his rightful expectation. While there

was no impediment to promote the workman (W.W. 1) as

per the provision of Rules of Management framed from

time to time. Further contention of the W.W.1 is that as he

was deprived of his due promotion because of wrong

application of Rules by adhering to the post based roster

and he retired on superannuation on 30.9.200, he is entitled

to proforma promotion with effect from 1.1.2006 and to get

all financial benefits. In his cross-examination, the W.W.1

categorically mentioned that his promotion was due on

1.1.2006 consequent upon the retirement of Sri S.N. Das on

31.12.2005, and thereafter Mr. Hareswar Haloi retired on

superannuation in the year 2005 and then also his promotion

was due but he was not considered by the Management.

He also mentioned that H.G. Rabha was promoted in place

of Hareswar Haloi who was a Machinist. The workman

(WW1) categorically denied the suggestion tendered by

the Management that H.G. Rabha was promoted as Grade-

I Machinist in the year 1993 whereas he got his promotion

as Turner in the year 1997; and that the Turner and the

Machinist were amalgamated together and accordingly

seniority was counted and promotion was done on the

basis of seniority. He again mentioned that he did not know

when H.G. Rabha joined in service nor he had submitted

any document to show that H.G.. Rabha was junior to him.

The workman witness No.2, Sri Pradip Kumar Saha,

the Joint Secretary of Rail Mazdoor Union, Pandu stated

that initially the workman Subhash Banik was deployed in

Wagon Repairing Shop at Pandu and afterwards he was

promoted to Turner Grade-III to Grade-II in 1982 and then

to Grade-I on 28.10.97. Due to closure of Wagon Repairing

Shop at Pandu the workman was re-deployed in Carriage

and Wagon Repairing Department in N.F. Railway and the

workman and the other surplus staff were kept separately

by creating supernumerary post and the establishment of

those staff were maintained at the office of the Mechanical

Section of Chief Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon.

The workman was the senior most Technician and was fit

to be promoted to Senior Technician in the Pay Scale of

Rs. 5000-8000 and the post was vacant since December,

2005 in the event of retirement of S.N. Das, senior Technician

on 31.12.2005. He also mentioned that in stead of promoting

the workman according to Rule, Sri H.G. Rabha, Machinist

Grade-I has been promoted as Master Crafts Man and for

this purpose of promotion Machinist Trade and Turner

Trade were amalgamated violating the Rule and was

deprived the workman from his rightful expectation. As

such, the workman has been perennially deprived from his

due since 1993 including incorrect application of Rules

during restructuring of cadres in his department under

Board's Scheme effective from 1.11.2003. Thus the workman

is entitled to proforma promotion with effect from 01.01.2006

and to get all financial benefits although he has retired. In

course of his cross-examination, W.W. 2 stated that during

the pendency of the proceeding other workmen namely

N.G. Mitra, Khagendra Singh, Kaliram Baruah, H.G. Rabha

and Swapan Das have been promoted and they are not

interested to proceed with the case and the Union is also

not interested to proceed with these 5 workmen who

ventilated their grievances before the Union in black and

white which was submitted before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. He also added that when the vacancy had

arisen for the post of Master Crafts Man in the Turner

Grade that should have been filled up by the senior man

namely the workman Subash Banik but it was not done by

the Management rather H.G. Rabha Machinist, Grade-I was

promoted illegally as Master Crafts Man by maintaining

inter-se seniority. It is also stated that at the time of

retirement of S.N. Das, only one post of Mastar Crafts Man

was vacant in Turner Grade and at that time there was no

post of Master Crafts Man Machinist. He categorically

denied that there was a individual Master Crafts Man post

in each Trade.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 17] [email protected] 26] 1935

4817

8. The Management on the other hand, examined

Smti Swapna Chakrabarty, Head Clerk, Personnel Branch,

C.P.O. Office, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, who deposed that

the workman Subhash Banik was promoted to Grade-I

Turner in the year 1997 and Sri H.G. Rabha, Machinist,

Grade-I was promoted in the year 1993 and both of them

worked together in the Wagon Repairing Depot, Pandu.

Upon closure of the Wagon Repairing Depot, Pandu, in

the year 1994 the existing staff were transferred to Coaching

Depot Office (C.D.O), Guwahati for emergency work at

utilisation basis. She has produced zerox copies of a roster

for promotion of Turner Grade-I and Machinist Grade-I

numbered as Ext. A & B (under objection) which shows

that the workman Subhash Banik was promoted to

Grade-I on 1.10.1997 and H.G. Rabha was promoted to

Machinist Grade-I on 20.12.93. She also stated that after

Grade-I as Turner and Machinist there needs promotion in

Senior Technician ( Master Crafts Man), and Mr. S.N. Das,

Senior Technician (MCM) retired on 31.12.2005 who was

of Machinist Grade and consequent upon his retirement

Sri H.G. Rabha was promoted to that Post with effect from

1.1.2006 since the Sri Rabha belongs to Machinist Trade.

The Management witness No.1 also produced a photo

copy of order dated 18.6.96 (marked as Ext. C (under

objection) wherein Machinist and Turner Grade-I were

amalgamated/combined and next promotion would be

senior Technician (MCM) from amalgamation/combined

list. She said that H.G. Rabha was rightly promoted in the

next grade. She denied the suggestion tendered by the

workman that there should be separate MCM from the

respective Machinist and Turner Grade and that the

promotion of Subhash Banik was not considered on the

retirement of Mr. S.N. Das. She also added that even if

there is no amalgamation/combined list still H.G. Rabha

was senior to Subhash Banik and in normal course he

should get promotion; and that the workman Subhash Banik

also did not file any objection before the authority that his

promotion was not considered by the department in case

of the promotion of Grade-I. The cross-examination of the

M.W.1 says that no new Circular was issued by the

Management excepting the Ext. C (under objection) in

respect of amalgamation (combined promotion to Master

Crafts Man) regarding Turner and Machinist and the Post

of MCM was in existences since 1987. She further said that

she did not know whether the workman Subhash Banik got

the restructuring benefit if any but the workman got his

usual promotion in the year 1997 as Grade-I and after

amalgamation of the Post Turner and Machinist a combined

seniority list was prepared wherein Mr. R.G. Rabha was

senior to Mr. Banik.

9. In course of argument Mrs. M. Borah, learned

Advocate for the workman submitted that the workman

Subhash Banik was appointed as Khalasi (Artisan) on

12.12.1965 and he was promoted to the Post of Turner

Grade-III on 19.7.82 and from Turner Grade-III to Grade- II on

16.5.1988, and from Turner Grade-II to Grade-I on 28.10.97;

and the workman was redeployed along with others in

Carriage and Wagon Department of Lumding Division, N.F.

Railway and they were given the status of supernumerary

post holder by creating by special supernumerary post for

them as such, the workman was to be governed by the

Rules of seniority, promotion and restructuring/ up

gradation of posts and other service conditions under the

Rules concerning special supernumerary post as per the

Rules formulated in the Railway Rules and the Master

Circulars issued by the Railway Board from time to time. In

this connection Mr. Borah, learned Advocate for the

workman referred the Standard Book on Railway Rules and

Establishment by K.P. Sharma 2003 Edition. Mrs. M.Borah

also relied upon the Railway Board Master Circular No.22

(1) regarding provisions on Supernumerary Posts; (2)

Railway Board's Circular No. PC/III/82/PS-3/10 of 14.2.86

regarding introduction of Post of MCM; (3) Circular No.PC-

III/91/CRC/1 dated 27.1.93 for restructuring certain Group-

C & D cadres and the Railway Board's Letter No.PC-III/

2003/CRC/ 6 dated 09.10.03.

Learned Advocate for the workman, in the light of

the Railway Board's Circulars/Rules as mentioned above

submitted that the supernumerary post is a shadow post

and it can be created only if an other vacant permanent or

temporary post is not available for the Railway servant

whose lien is to be protected by creation of supernumerary

post; and it stands earlier since the Railway Servant for

whom it was created vacates its on account of retirement

or confirmation in another permanent post or for any other

reason. Mrs. Borah, learned Advocate also added that the

Post of Master Craftsman for the first time at Scale Rs.425-

460/- was introduced to the extent of 10% of the skilled

Grade-I, II & III and the said post was introduced in

percentage prescribed for the total number of post of 19

Turner Category and these posts of Turner Grade-I by

creating a single post of MCM (Turner). As per the Railway

Board's Circular dated 27.1.93 as mentioned above

regarding restructuring of certain Group-C and Group-D

cadres with effect from 1.3.93 the applicable percentage of

Artisan category the workman was not benefited from the

policy whereby percentage of strength of Turner Grade-I

was increased from 27% to 35% and one additional post of

Turner Grade-I was to be created since the workman was in

Turner Grade-II as on 1.3.1993. But the Management never

implemented this policy in any Artisan Grade in the said

establishment. It is also pointed out by the learned Advocate

for the workman that the evidence of Management witness

No.1 Mrs. Swapna Chakrabarty regarding implementation

of cadres restructuring with effect from 1993 is totally false

and her statement has not been supported by any

documentary evidence.

10. Mr. K C. Sarma, learned Advocate for the

Management of N.F. Railway, on the other hand, submitted

4818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 17, 2013/SRAVANA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

that the present workman was appointed as Khalasi in the

year 1965 while the workman Sri H. G. Rabha was promoted

as Machinist-I in the year 1992 and said H.G. Rabha belongs

to Machinist Grade and workman Subhash Banic was

promoted to Turner Grade-I in 1997 and hence Mr. H.G.

Rabha was senior. Mr. Sarma also stated that the workman

Sri S. N. Das belongs to Turner Grade. Since H. G. Rabha

was Machinist Grade-I, he was promoted to Master Crafts

Man (subsequently re-named as senior Technician) and as

there is no Master Crafts Man Post/Senior Technician in

Turner Grade, the workman Subash Banik was not entitled

to get promotion as such, the claim of the workman is liable

to be rejected.

11. On scrutiny of the documents submitted by the

workman it appears that vide Railway Board's Circular

(Annexure-I) No. PC III/91/CRC/1/dated 27.1.93 regarding

restructuring of certain group C & D cadres in accordance

with the revised percentages indicated against the post

with reference to the sanctioned cadre strength on 1.3.1993;

and the said order is applicable on the regular cadres of the

open line establishment including workshop and

production units. By this order percentage of Artisan staff

namely the Turner-I has been raised from 27% to 35% and

the Master Crafts Man (Turner) 3% to 5% (Annexure-E) of

the aforesaid circular (Annexure-II). It is also found from

the Railway Board Circular No. PC III/82/PS-3/10, dated

14.2.1986 (Annexure-II) the post of Master Crafts Man was

introduced for the first time to the extent of 10% of the

skilled Grade-I and not more than 3% of total Post of Artisan

category in Grade-I, II and III. Thus it is clear that the

workman was in the grade of Turner Grade-II as on 1.3.1993

and he was not benefited from the policy whereby the

percentage of strength of Turner-I was increased from 27%

to 35%. The Management side also has not been able to

produce any evidence rebutting the aspect of the matter as

contended by the workman.

12. Further the learned Advocate for the workman

relied upon Railway Board's Circular No. PC.III/2003/CRC/

6 dated 9.10.2003 (Annexure-III) wherein the revised

percentage of post of Artisan Cadre were prescribed and

the restructuring of Group C & Group D staff common to all

engineering department including the workshop which is

shown below: