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- 34]

ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 18—vxLr 24] 2013] '[email protected] 27—Hkkæ 2] 1935

No. 34]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 18—AUGUST 24, 2013, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 27—BHADRA 2, 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)

foÙk ea=kky;

(jktLo foHkkx)

(dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1765-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk

;g vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUæ ljdkj }kjk vk;dj

fu;ekoyh] 1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5?k ds

lkFk ifBr vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk

35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ lsaVj iQkWj

MsoyiesaV vkWiQ VsyheSfVDl (lh&MkWV)] ubZ fnYyh] (iSu&,,,Vhlh

3895ds) dks 1&4&2002 ls fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu ^oSKkfud

vuqla/ku laLFkk* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] uker %µ

(i)

vuqeksfnr ^oSKkfud vuqla/ku laLFkk* dk eq[; mís';

oSKkfud vuqla/ku djuk gksxk_

(ii)

vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku dk;Zdyki Lo;a

djsxk_

(iii)

vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, blds }kjk

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

ftleas vuqla/ku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ

3479 GI/2013

(4841)

gks] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds

Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh

[kkrk&cgh dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vfèkfu;e

dh /kjk 139 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh

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

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

esa {ks=kkf/dkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj

funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk_

(iv)

vuqeksfnr laxBu izkIr nku vkSj lacaf/r foHkkxksa ds

laca/ esa oSKkfud vuqla/ku 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/or lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k

dh izfrfyfi izLrqr djsxk A

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

laxBu %µ

(d)

iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk cgh j[kus esa vliQy jgrk gS_ vFkok

([k)

iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vliQy jgrk gS_

vFkok

4842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(x)

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

vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k

izLrqr djus esa vliQy jgrk gS_ vFkok

(?k)

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

vuqla/ku dk;Z dks lgh ugha ik;k tk,xk_ vFkok

(M-)

mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5?k ds lkFk ifBr

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM

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

ughsa djsxk A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 62@2013@iQk- la- 203@60@2004&vk-d-fu-&IIº

Ípk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

( Department of Revenue)

( CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1765.—It is hereby notified for general

information that the organization Centre for Development

of Telematics (C-DOT), New Delhi (PAN-AAATC3895K)

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 Rules

5C and 5D of the Income-tax Rules. 1962 (said Rules), from

01.04.2002 onwards in the category of ‘Scientific

Research Association', subject to the following

conditions, namely :—

(i)

The sole objective of the approved ‘scientific

research association’ shall be to undertake

scientific research;

(ii)

The approved organization shall carry out

scientific research activity by itself;

(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 incom under sub-

section (1) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iv)

The approved organization shall maintain

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 :—

(f)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts

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

(g)

fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-

paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(h)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations

received and sums applied for scientific research

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

(i)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(j)

ceases to conform to and comply with the

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

Section 35 the said Act read with rules 5C and 5D

of the said Rules.

[Notification No. 62/2013/F. No. 203/60/2004-ITA-II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1766-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad (leuq"kaxh cSad)

vf/fu;e] 1959 (1959 dk 38) dh /kjk 26 dh mi&/kjk (2d)

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 25 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x [k) }kjk

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

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] LVsV cSad vkiQ =kko.kdksj

ds eq[; izca/d Jh lh- jktdqekj (tUe frfFk % 31&07&1961)]

dks fnukad 01&10&2013 dks ;k blds i'pkr~ muds }kjk in dk

dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ vof/ ds fy, vFkok

LVsV cSad vkWiQ =kko.kdksj ds vf/dkjh deZpkjh ds :i esa muds

in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh

igys gks] LVsV cSad vkWiQ =kko.kdksj ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/dkjh

deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 3@4@2013&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4843

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1766.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (cb) of the sub-section (1) of Section 25 read

with sub-section (2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of

India(Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), the

Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve

Bank of India, hereby re-appoints Shri C. Rajkumar

(DoB :31-07-1961), Chief Manager, State Bank of

Travancore, as Officer Employee Director on the Board of

Directors of State Bank of Travancore for a period of three

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

post on or after 01-10-2013 or till he ceases to be an officer

of the State Bank of Travancore or until further orders,

whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 3/4/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1767-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 dh

/kjk 8 dh mi&/kjk (4) ds lkFk ifBr mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M

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

,rn~}kjk] MkW- j?kqjke jktu] eq[; vk£Fkd lykgdkj] foÙk ea=kky;

dks MkW- Mh- lqCckjko ds dk;Zdky ds iwjk gksus ij muds LFkku ij

rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds vxys xouZj ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

orZeku xouZj ds lkFk ijLij O;kiu (vksojySi) dh O;oLFkk

gsrq fnukad 05&09&2013 dks Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds xouZj ds :i

esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ls iwoZ MkW- j?kqjke jktu dks ,rn~}kjk rhu

lIrkg dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad esa fo'ks"k dk;Z

vf/dkjh Hkh fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS A

¹iQk- la- 1@3@2013&chvks&Iº

Lusgyrk JhokLro] vij lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1767.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of

Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central

Government, hereby appoints Dr. Raghuram Rajan, Chief

Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, as the

next Governor of the Reserve Bank of India for a term of

three years vice Dr. D. Subba Rao upon completion of his

tenure.

Dr. Raghuram Rajan is also hereby appointed as

Officer on Special Duty in the Reserve Bank of India for a

period of three weeks prior to his taking over as Governor,

Reserve Bank of India on 05-09-2013 to provide for an

overlap with the present Governor.

[F. No. 1/3/2013-BO-I]

SNEHLATA SHRIVASTAVA, Addl. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1768-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/

) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr

cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk

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

Jh lat; oekZ (tUe frfFk 17&08&1968) dks mudh fu;qfDr

dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] iatkc ,aM ¯l/ cSad ds

funs'kd e.My esa va'k&dkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer

djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 6@16@2011&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1768.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

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

Nationalized Banks. (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby nominates Shri Sanjay Verma (DoB: 17.08.1968) as

part-time non-official director on the Board of Directors of

Punjab & Sind Bank for a period of three years, from the

date of notification of his appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/16/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

lw{e] y?kq vkSj eè;e m|e ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1769-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] lw{e] y?kq vkSj eè;e m|e ea=kky; ds

fu;a=k.kk/hu [kknh vkSj xzkeks|ksx vk;ksx] eqEcbZ ds fuEufyf[kr

v/huLFk dk;kZy; ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us

fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk

vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

4844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

jkT; dk;kZy;]

[kknh vkSj xzkeks|ksx vk;ksx]

>kykuk Mwaxjh]

t;iqj&302017 (jktLFkku)

¹la- bZ&12016@01@2005&fgUnhº

,l- ,u- f+=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM

ENTERPRISES

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1769.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies the following subordinate office of Khadi and

Village Industries Commission, Mumbai under the

control of the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium

Enterprises, whose more than 80% staff has acquired

working knowledge in Hindi :

State Office

Khadi and Village Industries Commission,

Jhalana Doongri,

Jaipur-302017 (Rajasthan)

[ No. E-12016/01/2005-Hindi]

S. N. TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy.

ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1770-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds

vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr dsanzh; fo|ky; laxBu ds fuEufyf[kr 1 {ks=kh;

dk;kZy; rFkk 9 dsanzh; fo|ky;ksa dks ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS %&

dsanzh; fo|ky;] laxBu {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] okjk.klh] dk'kh fgUnw fo'ofo|ky; ifjlj] okjk.klh] mÙkjizns'k&221005

dsanzh; fo|ky;] ysnj fiQfu¯'kx ;wfuV] ealk Vksyk] csfr;k] i- pEikj.k

dsanzh; fo|ky;] dk'kh fgUnw fo'ofo|ky; ifjlj] okjk.klh] mÙkjizns'k&221005

dsanzh; fo|ky;] vkbZ-Vh-vkbZ ifjlj] tsyjksM] nsofj;k & 274001

dsanzh; fo|ky;] cfy;k Mkdèkj] thjkcLrh] cfy;k &277001

dsanzh; fo|ky;] psjks lyseiqj] ftyk nsofj;k] mÙkjizns'k

dsanzh; fo|ky;] ljdkjh viQhe ,oa {kkjksn dkj[kkuk ifj{ks=k] ftyk xkthiqj & 233001

dsanzh; fo|ky;] pksiku & 231205 mÙkjizns'k

dsanzh; fo|ky;] Mh- ,y- MCY;w] dapuiqj okjk.klh] mÙkjizns'k&221004

10-

dsanzh; fo|ky;] lh- vkj- ih- ,iQ-] iQkiQekm] bykgkckn] mÙkjizns'k&211013

¹la- 11011&1@2013&jk-Hkk-,-º

vuUr dqekj ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1770.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following 1 Regional Office and 9 Kendriya Vidyalayas of

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Department of School

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4845

Education & Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of

Hindi :

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sangathan, Regional Office, Varanasi B.H.U. Campus, Varanasi - 221005 Uttar Pradesh

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Leather Finishing Unit, Mansa Tola, Betaih, W.Champaran

Kendriya Vidyalaya, BHU Campus, Varanasi - 221005

Kendriya Vidyalaya, I.T.I.Campus, Jail Road, Deoria, U. P. -274001

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ballia, Zeera Basti, Dist: Ballia - 277001

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chero, Salempur, Dist: Deoria, Uttar Pradesh

Kendriya Vidyalaya,Govt. Opium and Alkd. Works Campus, Distt. Ghazipur - 233001

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chopan - 231205, Uttar Pradesh

Kendriya Vidyalaya, DLW, Kanchanpur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh - 221004

10.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, C.R.P.F. Phaphamau Allahabad, U. P. -211013

[No.11011-1/2013-O.L.U.]

ANANT KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 iQjojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1771-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS vFkkZr~ %&

2- Jh ewdkfEcdk nar foKku laLFkku] psUuS ds fy, fn rfeyukMw MkW- ,e-th-vkj- fpfdRlk fo'ofo|ky;] psUuS n~okjk iznÙk nar

fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la[;k 34 ds XIII

ds lkeus dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %—

^^(ii) ekLVj vkiQ MsaVy ltZjh

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e Mh ,l (izksLFkks) fn rfeyukMw MkW- ,e-th-vkj-

(;fn 25&04&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

fpfdRlk fo'ofo|ky;] psUuS¸

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@22@2008&Mh bZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2013

S.O. 1771.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 against XIII Serial No. 34, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists

Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R. Medical

University , Chennai, the following entries in respect of Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekharam,

Tamil Nadu shall be inserted :—

4846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“(ii) Master of Dental Surgery

Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS(Prostho), The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R. Medical

(if granted on or after 25-04-2012)

University , Chennai’’

[No. V. 12017/22/2008-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1772-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS vFkkZr~ %&

2- n rfeyukMw MkW- ,e- th- vkj- esMhdy fo'ofo|ky;] pSUubZ }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar

fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] XIII ds Øe la[;k 34 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk

izfof"V;ksa esa Jh ewdechdk nar foKku laLFkku] dqykls[kkje rfeyukMw ds laca/ esa ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr

izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %

ihfj;ksMksaVksykWth

,e- Mh- ,l- (ihfj;ks) fn rfeyukMw MkW- ,e-th-vkj-

(;fn 23&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

esMhdy fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ

dh xbZ )

vkWFkks±MkasVhDl ,aM MsEVkWiQsf'k;y vkWFkks±isMhDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (vkWFkksZ) fn rfeyukMw MkW- ,e-th-vkj-

(;fn 23&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

esMhdy fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ

dh xbZ )

dalkosVho MsaVhlVªh ,aM ,aMksMksaVhDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (daljosVho MsaVhlVªhs) fn rfeyukMw MkW- ,e-th-

(;fn 23&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

vkj- esMhdy fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ A

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@22@2008&Mh bZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1772.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 against XIII Serial No. 34, in Part-I of the Schedule to the

Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R.

Medical University , Chennai, the following entries in respect of Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences,

Kulasekharam, Tamil Nadu under the heading ‘‘ Master of Dental Surgery’’ shall be inserted :

Periodontology

MDS(Perio), The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R. Medical

(if granted on or after 23-04-2013)

University, Chennai,

Orthodontics & Demtofacial Orthopedics

MDS(Ortho), The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R. Medical

(if granted on or after 23-04-2013)

University , Chennai,

Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics

MDS(Con. Dent), The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R. Medical

(if granted on or after 23-04-2013)

University , Chennai.

[ No. V. 12017/22/2008-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4847

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1773-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- xq# ?kklhnkl fo'ofo|ky;] fcykliqj }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 92 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka

vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %µ

(ii) ^^f=kos.kh nar fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku

vLirky ,oa vuqla/ku dsaæ] fcykliqj

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l- xq# ?kklhnkl fo'ofo|ky;] fcykliqj¸

(;fn 3&10&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@83@2006&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2013

S.O. 1773.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 against Serial No. 92, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Guru Ghasidas University , Bilaspur, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘(ii) Triveni Institute of Dental Sciences,

BDS, Guru Ghasidas University , Bilaspur’’

Hospital & Research Centre, Bilaspur

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

(if granted on or after 3-10-2013)

[ No. V. 12017/83/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 iQjojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1774-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- n;kuan lkxj dkWyst vkWiQ MsaVy lkbaZlst] csaxywj] dukZVd ds fy, jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dukZVd n~okjk

iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k

49 ds lkeus dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %—

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e Mh ,l (izksLFkks) jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku

(;fn 23&5&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

fo'ofo|ky;] dukZVd¸

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@34@2004&Mh bZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

4848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2013

S.O. 1774.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 of Serial No. 49, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

Bangalore, Karnataka against Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, the following entries

shall be inserted thereunder :—

“Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS(Prostho.), Rajiv Gandhi University of

(if granted on or after 23-05-2012)

Health Sciences, Bangalore’’

[ No. V. 12017/34/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 iQjojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1775-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

ts-,l-,l- MsaVy dkWyst ,aM vLirky] eSlwj ds fy, txnxq# Jh f'kojkFkzh'ojk fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk

fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 49 ds lkeus dkye

2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh** 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %—

^^ifCyd gsYFk MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (ifCyd gsYFk MsafVLVªhs)]

(;fn 21&4&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

txnxq# Jh f'kojkFkzh'ojk fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj¸

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@14@2011&MhbZº

lwcs ¯lg] mi lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2013

S.O. 1775.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 of Serial No. 108, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara University

Mysore, the following entries in respect of J.S.S. Dental College & Hospital, Mysore under the heading ‘‘Master of

Dental Surgery’’ shall be inserted :

‘‘Public Health Dentistry

MDS (Pub. Health Dent.),

(if granted on or after 21-04-2012)

Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara

University Mysore’’

[ No. V. 12017/14/2011-DE]

SUBE SINGH, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1776-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4849

2- iafMr ch-Mh- 'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 84 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr

izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %µ

^^ch vkj ,l nar fpfdRlk dkWyst ,oa

vLirky iapdqyk

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l-] iafMr ch-Mh- 'kekZ LokLF; foKku

(;fn 17&08&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd**

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@01@2013&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1776.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 against Serial No. 84, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

Rohtak, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘BRS Dental College & Hospital,

BDS, Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health

Panchkula

Sciences, Rohtak’’

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

(if granted on or after 17-8-2012)

[ No. V. 12017/01/2013-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1777-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 112 ds ckn fuEufyf[kr Øe la[;k

vkSj izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh] vFkkZr~ %µ

^^113 ftokth fo'ofo|ky;] Xokfy;j

baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ MsaVy ,tqds'ku ,aM ,M~okal

(eè; izns'k)

LVMht (vkbZfM;kt)] Xokfy;j

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l-] ftokth fo'ofo|ky;] Xokfy;j

(;fn 27&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

(eè; izns'k)¸

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@68@2006&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

4850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1777.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) after Serial No. 112, the following Serial number

and entries shall be inserted namely :—

‘‘113 Jiwaji University, Gwalior,

Institute of Dental Education &

(M.P) .

Advance Studies (IDEAS), Gwalior.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Jiwaji University, Gwalior,

(if granted on or after 27-4-2013)

(M.P) .”

[ No. V. 12017/68/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1778-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS vFkkZr~ %&

egkRek xka/h fo'ofo|ky;] dksV~Vk;e] dsjy }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 68 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka

vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %µ

^^bafnjk xka/h nar fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku]

dksBeaxye] dsjy

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l- egkRek xka/h fo'ofo|ky;] dksV~Vk;e]

(;fn 20&11&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku

dsjy¸

dh xbZ )

¹la- oh- 12017@38@2005&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24 January, 2013

S.O. 1778.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 against Serial No. 68, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam Kerala,

the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental

Sciences Kothamangalam, Kerala,

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Mahatma Gandhi University,

(if granted on or after 20-11-2012)

Kottayam, Kerala’’

[ No. V. 12017/38/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4851

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1779-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

(2) Jh fl¼kFkZ fo'ofo|ky;] VweoqQj }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 99 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa Jh fl¼kFkZ MsaVy dkWyst]

Vwedqj] dukZVd ds lEca/ esa ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var% LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

¶izksLFkksMsaVhd ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e-Mh-,l- (izksLFkks)] Jh fl¼kFkZ fo'ofo|ky;] Vwedqj

(;fn 21&5&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

iSMksaVhDl ,aM izhosaVho MsaVhlVªh

,e-Mh-,l- (iSMks)] Jh fl¼kFkZ fo'ofo|ky;] Vwedqj¸

(;fn 21&5&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹la- oh- 12017@01@2010&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1779.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against of Serial No.99 in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Sri Siddhartha University, Tumkur, the following entries

in respect of Sri Siddhartha Dental College, Tumkur, Karnataka under the heading "Master of Dental Surgery" shall be

inserted:

‘‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS (Prostho), Sri Siddhartha University, Tumkur

(if granted on or after 21-5-2013)

Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry

MDS (Paedo), Sri Siddhartha University, Tumkur"

(if granted on or after 21-5-2013)

[No. V-12017/01/2010-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1780-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 72 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%

LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

4852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IX. ^^nklokuh nar fpfdRlk dkWyst ,oa vuqla/ku

dsanz] dksVk

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch- Mh- ,l-] jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj**

(;fn 10&10&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹la- oh- 12017@83@2005&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2013

S.O. 1780.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No.72 in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, the

following entries shall be inserted thereunder :

‘‘IX. Daswani Dental College & Research

Centre, Kota

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur.’’

(if granted on or after 10-10-2013)

[No.V.-12017/83/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1781-—dsanz ljdkj jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa {ks=kh; izpkj funs'kky;] iwohZ CykWd&IV] yscy&III] vkj- ds- iqje] ubZ fnYyh (lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;) ds fuEufyf[kr

v/huLFk dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80% ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS %&

(d) izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] o/Zeku

([k) izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] ckdqjk

(x) izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] jkuk?kkV

(?k) izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] papaqjk

(Ä) izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] iksVZ Cys;j

(p) izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] esfnuhiqj

¹la- bZ&11017@6@2012&¯gnhº

fiz;Eonk] funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4853

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2013

S.O. 1781.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Directorate of Field Publicity, East

Block-IV, Label-III, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) more than 80% of the staff whereof

have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

(a) Regional Office, Vardhman

(b) Regional Office, Bakura

(d) Regional Office, Chunchunra

(e) Regional Office, Portblair

(f) Regional Office, Medinipur

[No. E-11017/6/2012-Hindi]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1782-—dsanz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa vkdk'kok.kh egkfuns'kky;] izlkj Hkkjrh] ubZ fnYyh (lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;) ds v/huLFk dk;kZy;ksa vkdk'kok.kh] psUuS

ftlds 80 % ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- bZ& 11017@6@2012&¯gnhº

fiz;Eonk] funs'kd (jk- Hkk-)

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2013

S.O. 1782.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies All India Radio, Chennai under Directorate General of All India

Radio, Prasar Bharti, New Delhi (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) more than 80% of the staff where of have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11017/6/2012-Hindi]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1783-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa %

4854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

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

LFkkfir frfFk

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 13607 % 1992 rS;kj fefJr jax

la'kks/u la[;k ua 2

31 tqykbZ 2012

jksxu] fiQfuf'akx nsus okys] lkekU; mi;ksx

tqykbZ] 2013

ds fy,] laf'y"V&&fof'kf"V

bl la'kks/u dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] 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/ gSa A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in.

}kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ lh,pMh 20@vkbZ,l 13607º

Mk- jktho ds- >k] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (jlk;u)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1783.—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 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

Date from which the amend-

Indian Standards

amdnement

ment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13607 : 1992 Ready mixed

Amendment No. 2

31 July 2013

paint, finishing, general purposes,

July, 2013

synthetic — specification

Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.

[ Ref. CHD 20/IS 13607]

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

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1784-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %µ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4855

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

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

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 5054 (Hkkx 8)% 2013@vkbZbZlh 61169&8% 2007 &

vizSy 2013

jsfM;ks fizQDoSalh la;kstd Hkkx 8 fo"k; fof'kf"V&csvkWusV

ykWd lfgr 6-5 feeh (0-256 bap) vkarfjd O;kl ds

ckg~; pkyd okys jsfM;ks izQhDoSalh lek{k la;kstd &

yk{kf.kd izfrck/k 50Ω (Vkbi ch-,u-lh-)

vkbZ ,l 15964 % 2013

ebZ 2013

fMftVy izQh&Vw&,;j lSVsykbV fjlhoj&fof'kf"V

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&30 (2010)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 30 rarq izwiQ ijh{k.k

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&31 (2010)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 31 ruu lekF;Z

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&33 (2001)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 33 izfrcy laj{k.k laosnu'khyrk

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&40 (2001)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 40 ,Vsuq,'ku

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&41 (2010)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 41 cSaMfoM~Fk

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&42 (2007)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 42 ØksesfVd ifj{ksi.k

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&43 (2001)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 43 la[;kRed fNnz

10-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&45 (2001)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 45 ekWM fiQYM O;kl

11-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&46 (2001)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kr rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 46 izdkf'kr ikjxeurk ds cnyko dks ekuhVj

djuk

4856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&47 (2009)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kd rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 47 eSØkscsUMhax ykWl

13-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&49 (2006)

vizSy 2013

izdkf'kd rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 49 visf{kd ekWM fMys;

14-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&34 (2006)

ebZ 2013

izdkf'kd rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 34 rarq dyZ

15-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&48 (2007)

ebZ 2013

izdkf'kd rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 48 iksyjkbts'ku ekWM ifj{ksi.k

16-

vkbZbZlh 60793&1&54 (2003)

ebZ 2013

izdkf'kd rarq Hkkx 1 % ekiu fof/;k¡ vkSj ijh{k.k izfØ;k,¡

vuqHkkx 54 xkek bjsfM,'ku

bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] 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/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ ,y vkbZ Vh Mh@th&75º

ih-jk/kd`".kk] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (bySDVªkWfudh ,oa vkbZ Vh )

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1784.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the

Date of Established

Standards Established

Indian Standards, if any,

Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 5054 (Part 8) : 2013/IEC 61169-8 : 2007

April, 2013

Radio frequency connectors Part 8: Sectional

specification -RF-coaxial connectors with inner

diameter of outer conductor 6.5 mm (0.256 in)

with bayonet lock-Characteristic impedance 50Ω

(type bnc)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4857

IS/15964 : 2013

May, 2013

Digital free to air satellite receiver

—specification

IS/IEC 60793-1-30 : (2010)

April, 2013

Optical Fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 30 Fibre proof test

IS/IEC 60793-1-31 : (2010)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 31 Tensile strength

IS/IEC 60793-1-33 : (2001)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 33 Stress Corrosion

Susceptibility

IS/IEC 60793-1-40 : (2001)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 40 Attenuation

IS/IEC 60793-1-41 : (2010)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 41 Bandwidth

IS/IEC 60793-1-42 : (2007)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 42 Chromatic Dispersion

IS/IEC 60793-1-43 : (2001)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 43 Numerical Aperature

10.

IS/IEC 60793-1-45 : (2001)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 45 Mode Field Diameter

11.

IS/IEC 60793-1-46 : (2001)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 46 Monitoring of changes

in optical transmittance

12.

IS/IEC 60793-1-47 : (2009)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 47 Macrobending loss

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

4858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

IS/IEC 60793-1-49 : (2006)

April, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 49 Differential mode delay

14.

IS/IEC 60793-1-34 : (2006)

May, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 34 Fibre Curl

15.

IS/IEC 60793-1-48 : (2007)

May, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 48 Polarization mode

dispersion

16.

IS/IEC 60793-1-54 : (2003)

May, 2013

Optical fibres - Part 1 : Measurement

methods and test

procedures - Sec 54 Gamma irradiation

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref. LITD/G-75]

P. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (LITD)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1785-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962

(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 6 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk

la[;k dk-vk- 3676 rkjh[k 20&11&2002 ,oa dk-vk- 1511(v) rkjh[k 17&6&2009 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx II [k.M 3 mi[k.M

(ii) izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

mDr vf/lwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy ljnkj'kgj**

(d) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^vM+lhlj**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^819@63**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&00+2&10** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^5&10** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^2&10** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^483@60**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&16+0&15** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^1&11** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^0&15** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^479@60**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&05+2&13** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^3&18** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^2&13** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^478@57**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&11+3&04** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^5&15** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^3&04** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^619@484@60**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&02+0&05** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&07** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^0&05** j[kk tk;sxk A

¹la- vkj&31015@11@2002&vksvkj&IIº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4859

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1785.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following

amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S.O. 3676 dated

20-11-2002 and S.O. 1511 (E) dated 17-06-2009 published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), of the Gazette of India,

namely :-

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Sardarshahar :-

(A) against village "Arsisar" , in column 1,

(i) In survey no. "819/63", in column 2, for the areas "3-00+2-10" total area "5-10", in

column 4, the area "2-10" shall be substituted.

(ii) In survey no. "483/60", in column 2, for the areas "0-16+0-15" total area "1-11", in

column 4, the area "0-15" shall be substituted.

(iii) In survey no. "479/60", in column 2, for the areas "1-05+2-13" total area "3-18", in

column 4, the area "2-13" shall be substituted.

(iv) In survey no. "478/57", in column 2, for the areas "2-11 +3-04" total area "5-15" in

column 4, the area "3-04" shall be substituted.

(v) In survey no. "619/484/60", in column 2, for the areas "0-02+0-05" total area "0-07", in

column 4, the area "0-05" shall be substituted.

[No. R-31015/11/2002-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1786-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962

(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 6 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk

la[;k dk-vk- 1800 rkjh[k 27&5&2002 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx 2 [k.M 3 mi&[k.M (ii) izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

mDr vf/lwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy JhMwaxjx<**

(d) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^csuhlj**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^399**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&15** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^398**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&12** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^395**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&06** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^385**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^386**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&04** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^387**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&19** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^389**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&12** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(viii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^184**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&14** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

4860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ix)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^185**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(x)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^183**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&12** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^186**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&17** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(xii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^368**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk

tk;sxk A

¹la- vkj&31015@3@2001&vksvkj&IIº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1786.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following

amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S.O. 1800 dated

27-05-2002 published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), of the Gazette of India, namely :-

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Shri Dungargarh :-

(A) against village "Benisar" , in column 1,

(i) In survey no. ‘‘399’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘0-15’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(ii) In survey no. ‘‘398’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘2-12’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(iii) In survey no. ‘‘395’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘1-06’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(iv) In survey no. ‘‘385’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘1-03’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(v) In survey no. ‘‘386’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘0-04’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(vi) In survey no. ‘‘387’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘0-19’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(vii) In survey no. ‘‘389’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘0-12’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(viii) In survey no. ‘‘184’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘2-14’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(ix) In survey no. ‘‘185’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘0-01’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(x) In survey no. ‘‘183’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘0-12’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(xi) In survey no. ‘‘186’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘1-17’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

(xii) In survey no. ‘‘368’’, in column 2, for the areas ‘‘1-02’’ in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL’’ shall be substituted.

[No. R-31015/3/2001-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1787-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962

(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk

la[;k dk-vk- 1796 rkjh[k 27&5&2002 ,oa dk-vk- 1687(v) rkjh[k 8&7&2009 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx 2 [k.M 3 mi&[k.M (ii)

izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

mDr vf/lwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy ukxkSj**

(d) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^tk[kkfu;ka**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^220**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&02+3&11** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^6&13** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^3&11** j[kk tk;sxk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4861

(ii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^191**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&06+0&16** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^1&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^0&16** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^98**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^217**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&04** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^78**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&15+1&08** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^4&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^1&08** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^79**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&08+2&17** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^4&05** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&17** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^81**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&04+2&05** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&09** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&05** j[kk tk;sxk A

(viii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^80**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ix)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^84**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&13+2&14** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^5&07** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&14** j[kk tk;sxk A

(x)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^83**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&12+1&03** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^3&15** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^1&03** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^96**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&11+2&06** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^4&17** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&06** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^95**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&04** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xiii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^94**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&09+4&07** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^6&16** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^4&07** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xiv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^94@335**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&07** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^219**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&16+2&14** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^6&10** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&14** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xvi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^218**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&06** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xvii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^258**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&08+2&09** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&17** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&09** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xviii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^190**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^4&11+4&00** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^8&11** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^4&00** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xix)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^189**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&03+0&04** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&07** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^0&04** j[kk tk;sxk A

([k) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^u;kxkao**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^7**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&01+7&09** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^9&10** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^7&09** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^6**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^9**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&13** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^10**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&06+2&14** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^5&00** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&14** j[kk tk;sxk A

4862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(v)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^11**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^4&10+4&18** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^9&08** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^4&18** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^16**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&14+2&03** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^3&17** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&03** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^17**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&19+0&01** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&00** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^0&01** j[kk tk;sxk A

(viii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^18**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&10+3&05** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^5&15** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^3&05** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ix)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^20**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&08+1&12** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&00** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^1&12** j[kk tk;sxk A

(x) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^Jhckykth**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^774**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&11** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(?k) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^dkyMh**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^381**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&05+0&07** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&12** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^10&07** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^382**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&01+5&15** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^5&16** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^5&15** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^371**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&08** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^370**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&04** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^369**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^225**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&06** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^447@225**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&09+0&11** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&00** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^0&11** j[kk tk;sxk A

(viii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^223**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^4&05+5&04** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^9&09** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^5&04** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ix)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^224**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&08** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(x)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^320**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^318**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^4&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^315**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&16** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xiii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^316**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xiv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^338**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^239**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&14+8&19** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^12&13** ds LFkku ij

{ks=kiQy ^^8&19** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xvi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^347**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&09** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xvii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^349**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&17+2&03** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^6&00** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^2&03** j[kk tk;sxk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4863

(xviii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^266**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&03+0&03** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&06** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^0&03** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xix)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^237**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&03+0&04** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&07** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^0&04** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xx)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^455@377**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&14** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xxi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^456@377**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&10** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xxii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^374**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xxiii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^375**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^6&10** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xxiv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^380**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&11** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^1&08** j[kk tk;sxk A

(M) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^Msjok**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^6**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^7&12+7&10** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^15&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^7&10** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^8**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&03+0&13** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&16** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^0&13** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^23**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^4&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^24**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^26**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(p) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^ihaiklj**

(i)

LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^56**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

¹la- vkj&31015@32@2001&vksvkj&IIº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1787.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following

amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S.O. No. 1796 dated

27-05-2002 and S.O. No. 1687(E) dated 08-07-2009 published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), of the Gazette of India,

namely :-

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Nagaur :-

(A) against village "Jakhaniya" , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. "220", in column 2, for the areas "3-02+3-11" total area "6-13", in column 4, the area "3-11" shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. "191", in column 2, for the areas "0-06+0-16" total area "1-02", in column 4, the area "0-16" shall be

substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. "98", in column 2, for the areas "0-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. "217", in column 2, for the areas "0-04", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(v)

In survey no. "78", in column 2, for the areas "2-15+1-08", total area "4-03" in column 4, the area "1-08" shall be

substituted.

4864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(vi)

In survey no. "79", in column 2, for the areas "1-08+2-17", total area "4-05" in column 4, the area "2-17" shall be

substituted.

(vii)

In survey no. "81", in column 2, for the areas "0-04+2-05" total area "2-09", in column 4, the area "2-05" shall be

substituted.

(viii)

In survey no. "80", in column 2, for the areas "2-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(ix)

In survey no. "84", in column 2, for the areas "2-13+2-14" total area "5-07", in column 4, the area "2-14" shall be

substituted,

(x)

In survey no. "83", in column 2, for the areas "2-12+1-03" total area "3-15", in column 4, the area "1-03" shall be

substituted.

(xi)

In survey no. "96", in column 2 for the areas "2-11+2-06" total area "4-17", in column 4 the area "2-06" shall be

substituted.

(xii)

In survey no. "95", in column 2, for the areas "0-04", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xiii)

In survey no. "94", in column 2, for the areas "2-09+4-07" total area "6-16", in column 4, the area "4-07" shall be

substituted.

(xiv)

In survey no. "94/335", in column 2, for the areas "3-07", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xv)

In survey no. "219", in column 2, for the areas "3-16+2-14" total area "6-10", in column 4, the area "2-14" shall be

substituted.

(xvi)

In survey no. "218", in column 2, for the areas "0-06", in column 4 the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xvii)

In survey no. "258", in column 2, for the areas "0-08+2-09", total area "2-17" in column 4 the area 2-09 shall be

substituted.

(xviii)

In survey no. "190", in column 2, for the areas "4-11+4-00", total area "8-11", in column 4, the area "4-00" shall be

substituted.

(xix)

In survey no. "189", in column 2, for the areas "0-03+0-04" total area "0-07" in column 4, the area "0-04", shall be

substituted.

(B) against village "Nayagaon" , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. "7", in column 2, for the areas "2-01+7-09" total area "9-10", in column 4, the area "7-09" shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. "6", in column 2, for the areas "0-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. "9", in column 2, for the areas "2-13", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. "10", in column 2, for the areas "2-06+2-14" total area "5-00", in column 4, the area "2-14" shall be

substituted.

(v)

In survey no. "11", in column 2, for the areas "4-10+4-18" total area "9-08", in column 4, the area "4-18" shall be

substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. "16", in column 2, for the areas "1-14+2-03" total area "3-17", in column 4, the area "2-03" shall be

substituted.

(vii)

In survey no. "17", in column 2, for the areas "1-19+0-01" total area "2-00", in column 4, the area "0-01" shall be

substituted.

(viii)

In survey no. "18", in column 2, for the areas "2-10+3-05" total area "5-15", in column 4, the area "3-05" shall be

substituted.

(ix)

In survey no. "20", in column 2, for the areas "0-08+1-12" total area "2-00", in column 4, the area "1-12" shall be

substituted.

(C)

against village "Shri Balaji", in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. "774", in column 2, for the areas "1-11", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4865

(D)

against village "Kalri" , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. "381", in column 2, for the areas "0-05+0-07" total area "0-12", in column 4, the area "0-07" shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. "382", in column 2, for the areas "0-01+5-15" total area "5-16", in column 4, the area "5-15" shall be

substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. "371", in column 2, for the areas "2-08", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. "370", in column 2, for the areas "0-04", in column 4 the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(v)

In survey no. "369", in column 2, for the areas "0-02", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. "225", in column 2, for the areas "1-06", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(vii)

In survey no. "447/225", in column 2, for the areas "1-09+0-11" total area "2-00", in column 4, the area "0-11" shall

be substituted.

(viii)

In survey no. "223", in column 2, for the areas "4-05+5-04" total. area "9-09", in column 4, the area "5-04" shall be

substituted.

(ix)

In survey no. "224", in column 2, for the areas "0-08" in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(x)

In survey no. "320", in column 2, for the areas "0-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xi)

In survey no. "318", in column 2, for the areas "4-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xii)

In survey no. "315", in column 2, for the areas "0-16", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xiii)

In survey no. "316", in column 2, for the areas "0-02", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xiv)

In survey no. "338", in column 2, for the areas "0-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shal be substituted.

(xv)

In survey no. "239", in column 2, for the areas "3-14+8-19", total area "12-13", in column 4, the area "8-19" shall

be substituted.

(xvi)

In survey no. "347", in column 2, for the areas "2-09", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xvii)

In survey no. "349", in column 2, for the areas "3-17+2-03" total area "6-00", in column 4, the area "2-03" shall be

substituted.

(xviii)

In survey no. "266", in column 2, for the areas "0-03+0-03" total area "0-06", in column 4, the area "0-03" shall be

substituted.

(xix)

In survey no. "237", in column 2, for the areas "0-03+0-04" total area "0-07", in column 4, the area "0-04" shall be

substituted.

(xx)

In survey no. "455/377", in column 2, for the areas "2-14", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xxi)

In survey no. "456/377", in column 2, for the areas "1-10", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xxii)

In survey no. "374", in column 2, for the areas "0-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xxiii)

In survey no. "375", in column 2, for the areas "6-10" in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(xxiv)

In survey no. "380", in column 2, for the areas "2-11", in column 4, the area "1-08" shall be substituted.

(E) against village "Dehrwa" , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. "6", in column 2, for the areas "7-12+7-10", total area "15-02", in column 4, the area "7-10" shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. "8" in column 2, for the areas "0-03+0-13" total area "0-16", in column 4, the area "0-13" shall be

substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. "23", in column 2, for the areas "4-02", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. "24", in column 2, for the areas "0-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shallbe substituted.

(v)

In survey no. "26", in column 2, for the areas "3-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. "1", in column 2, for the areas "2-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(F) against village "Pinpasar", in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. "56", in column 2, for the areas "2-01", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

[No. R-31015/32/2001-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

4866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1788-—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3780 rkjh[k 05&12&2002] dk-vk-

1513(v) rkjh[k 17&06&2009 ,oa dk-vk- 275 rkjh[k

17&01&2012 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx II, [k.M 3] mi&[k.M

(ii) esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS]

vFkkZr~ %&

mDr vf/lwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy vksfl;ka**

(d) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^eFkkfu;ka izFke**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ¶823¸] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&00+2&00** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^4&00** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^2&00** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^435**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&11** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&12**

,oa LrEHk 2 esa losZ{k.k la[;k ^^435@2**] LrEHk 4 esa

{ks=kiQy ^^0&19** j[kk tk;sxk A

([k) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^eFkkfu;ka f}rh;**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^721**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&12+1&00** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^1&12** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^1&00** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^721@1**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&12+1&13** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&05**

ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^1&13** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^722**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&10+2&02** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^3&12** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^2&02** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^726**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&02+0&19** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^2&01** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&19** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^740**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&07+0&06** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&13** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&06** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^743**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&18+2&05** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^4&03** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^2&05** j[kk tk;sxk A

(vii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^748**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&02+0&07** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^0&09** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&07** j[kk tk;sxk A

(x) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^mEesnuxj**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^197**] ds LFkku ij

losZ{k.k la[;k ^^197@1** j[kk tk;sxk A

(?k) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^Mkaojk**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1159@3**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^4&08** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^1&16** j[kk tk;sxk A

(M) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^ckluh Mkaojk**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^2020@1**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&13** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1923**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&04**

,oa LrEHk 2 esa losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1923@1**] LrEHk 4 esa

{ks=kiQy ^^0&17** j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii)LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^2018**] ds LFkku ij

losZ{k.k la[;k ^^2018@1** j[kk tk;sxk A

(p) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^tsrh;kokl**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^347**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^3&13** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^1&14**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(N) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^ukafn;k dyka**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^109**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&17** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&18**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^109@2**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&17** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&19**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(t) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^ukafn;k [kqnZ**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^255**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^2&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&08**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(>) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^/ukjh dyka**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^2@4**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^1&10** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

¹la- vkj&31015@45@2008&vksvkj&IIº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1788.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4867

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the

following amendments in the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, S.O. 3780 dated 5-12-2002, S.O. 1513(E) dated

17-06-2009 and S.O. 275 dated 17-01-2012 published in

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India,

namely:—

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil

Osiyan:—

(A) against village ‘‘Mathaniya First” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘823”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘2-00+2-00” total area ‘‘4-00”, in column 4, the

area ‘‘2-00” shall be substituted.

(ii)in survey no. ‘‘435”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-11”, in column 4, the area ‘‘0-12” and in column

2, survery no. ‘‘435/2”, in column 4, the area

‘‘0-19” shall be substituted.

(B) against village ‘‘Mathaniya Second” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘721”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-12+1-00” total area ‘‘1-12”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘1-00” shall be substituted.

(ii) in survey no. ‘‘721/1”, column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-12+1-13” total area ‘‘2-05”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘1-13” shall be substituted.

(iii) in survey no. ‘‘722”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-10+2-02” total area ‘‘3-12”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘2-02” shall be substituted.

(iv) in survey no. ‘‘726”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-02+0-19” total area ‘‘2-01”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘0-19” shall be substituted.

(v) in survey no. ‘‘740”, column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-07+0-06” total area ‘‘0-13”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘0-06” shall be substituted.

(vi) in survey no. ‘‘743”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-18+2-05” total area ‘‘4-03”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘2-05” shall be substituted.

(vii)in survey no. ‘‘748”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-02+0-07” total area ‘‘0-09”, in column no. 4,

the area ‘‘0-07” shall be substituted.

(i) in survey no. ‘‘197”, in column 2, survey no.

‘‘197/1” shall be substituted.

(D) against village ‘‘ Danwara” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘1159/3”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘4-08” , in column no. 4, the area ‘‘1-16” shall be

substituted.

(E) against village ‘‘ Basni Danwara” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘2020/1”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-13”, in column no. 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(ii) in survey no. ‘‘1923”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-01”, in column no. 4, the area ‘‘0-04” and in

column 2, survery no. ‘‘1923/1”, in column 4, the

area ‘‘0-17” shall be substituted.

(iii) in survey no. ‘‘2018”, in column no. 2, survey no.

‘‘2018/1” shall be substituted.

(F) against village ‘‘ Jetiyavas Kalan” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘347”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘3-13”, in column 4, the area ‘‘1-14” shall be

substituted.

(G) against village ‘‘ Nandiya Kalan” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘109”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-17”, in column 4, the area ‘‘0-18” shall be

substituted.

(ii) in survey no. ‘‘109/2”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-17”, in column 4, the area ‘‘109” shall be

substituted.

(H) against village ‘‘ Nandiya Khurd” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘255”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘2-03”, in column 4, the area ‘‘0-08” shall be

substituted.

(I) against village ‘‘ Dhanari Kalan” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘2/4”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘1-10”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

[No. R-31015/45/2008-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1789-—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2298 rkjh[k 12&07&2002] dk-vk-

475(v) rkjh[k 06&02&2003 ,oa dk-vk- 1512(v) rkjh[k

17&06&2009 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx II, [k.M 3] mi&[k.M

(ii) esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS]

vFkkZr~ %&

mDr vf/lwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy ukS[kk**

(d) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^f[kfp;klj**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^273**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&9700** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

4868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^265**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&5400** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^264**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&1500+0&4460** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&5960** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&4460** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^262**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0200+0&0331** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&0531** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0331** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(v) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^255**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2600+0&2982** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&5582** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&2982** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(vi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^251**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&4000+0&3930** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&7930** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&3930** j[kk

tk;sxk A

([k) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^dkdMk**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1614@1577**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0200** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1080**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&4300+0&9290** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^1&3590** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&9290** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1054**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&4900+0&0055** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&4955** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0055** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1577@1081**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&4400** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(v) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1082**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0300** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1083**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0800+0&3174** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&3974** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&3174** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(vii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1087**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0300** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(viii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1587@1083**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0500+0&0460** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&0960** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0460** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(ix) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1084**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&1900+0&0979** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&2879** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0979** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(x) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1092**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0700** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(xi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1071**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0200** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(xii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1089**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&4300** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(xiii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1070**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&4500+0&3980** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&8480** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&3980** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(xiv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1555@1053**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2700+0&3358** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&6058** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&3358** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(x) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^chjelj**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^631@76**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0600+0&0322** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&0922** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0322** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^76**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&5100+0&5658** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^1&0758** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&5658** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^79**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&3200+0&5106** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&8306** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&5106** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^80**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&3400** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4869

(v) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^81**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0300** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(vi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^82**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&3000** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(vii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^83**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0100+0&3772** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&3872** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&3772** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(viii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^49**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&7400** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(ix) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^45**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2300+1&2880** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^1&5180** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^1&2880** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(x) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^601@45**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0400** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy

^^'kqU;** j[kk tk;sxk A

(xi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^46**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&3600** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(?k) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^HkkSe&eS;klj**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^301**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0200** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^302**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&5600** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(iii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^298**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0500** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(iv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^297**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa

{ks=kiQy ^^0&3300** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(v) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^296**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa

{ks=kiQy ^^0&0100** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(Ä) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^lk/klj**

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^526**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&3100+0&04507** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&7607¸ ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&4507** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^527**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2600+0&4370** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&6970** ] ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&4370** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^529**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&3800+0&3300** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&7100** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&3300** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(iv) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^538**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0500+0&0138** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&0638** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0138** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(v) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^595**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2100+0&6109** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&8209** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&6109** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(vi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^2148@595**] ds lkeus

LrEHk 4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0500+0&0920** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&1420** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&0920** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(vii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^602**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2100+0&2484** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&4584** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&2484** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(viii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^604**] ds lkeus LrEHk

4 esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&2100+0&2254** dqy {ks=kiQy

^^0&4354** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^0&2254** j[kk

tk;sxk A

(ix) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^597**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0200** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(x) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^598**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&1900** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

(xi) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^599**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0800** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

4870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(xii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^600**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^0&0500** ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^'kqU;**

j[kk tk;sxk A

¹la- vkj&31015@47@2008&vksvkj&IIº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1789.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the

following amendments in the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, S.O. 2298 dated 12-07-2002, S.O. 475

dated 06-02-2003 and S.O. 1512(E) dated 17-06-2009

published in Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the

Gazette of India, namely:—

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil

Nokha:—

(A) against village ‘‘Khichiasar” , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. ‘‘273”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-9700” , in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. ‘‘265”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-5400”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. ‘‘264”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-1500 +0-4460”, total area ‘‘0-5960”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-4460” shall be

substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. ‘‘262”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0200+0-0331”, total area ‘‘0-0531”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-0331” shall be

substituted.

(v)

In survey no. ‘‘255”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-2600 +0-2982”, total area ‘‘0-5582”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-2982” shall be

substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. ‘‘251”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-4000 +0-3930”, total area ‘‘0-7930”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-3930” shall be

substituted.

(B) against village ‘‘Kakda” , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. ‘‘1614/1577”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0200”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL”

shall be substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. ‘‘1080”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-4300 +0-9290”, total area ‘‘1-3590”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-9290” shall be

substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. ‘‘1054”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-4900 +0-0055”, total area ‘‘0-4955”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-0055” shall be

substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. ‘‘1577/1081”, in column 2, for

the areas‘‘0-4400”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL”

shall be substituted.

(v)

In survey no. ‘‘1082”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0300”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. ‘‘1083”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0800 +0-3174”, total area ‘‘0-3974”,

in column 4, the area ‘‘0-3174” shall be

substituted.

(vii)

In survey no. ‘‘1087”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0300”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL”

shall be substituted.

(viii)

In survey no. ‘‘1587/1083”, in column 2, for

the areas ‘‘0-0500 +0-0460”, total area

‘‘0-0960”, in column 4, the area ‘‘0-0460” shall

be substituted.

(ix)

In survey no. ‘‘1084”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-1900+0-0979”, total area ‘‘0-2879” in column

4, the area ‘‘0-0979” shall be substituted.

(x)

In survey no. ‘‘1092”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0700”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL”

shall be substituted.

(xi)

In survey no. ‘‘1071”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0200”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL”

shall be substituted.

(xii)

In survey no. ‘‘1089”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-4300”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(xiii)

In survey no. ‘‘1070”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-4500+0-3980”, total area ‘‘0-8480” in column

4, the area ‘‘0-3980” shall be substituted.

(xiv)

In survey no. ‘‘1555/1053”, in column 2, for

the areas ‘‘0-2700+0-3358”, total area ‘‘0-6058”

in column 4, the area ‘‘0-3358” shall be

substituted.

(i)

In survey no. ‘‘631/76”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0600 +0-0322”, total area ‘‘0-0922”,

in column 4, the area ‘‘0-0322” shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. ‘‘76”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-5100 +0-5658”, total area ‘‘1-0758”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-5658” shall be

substituted.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4871

(iii)

In survey no. ‘‘79”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3200 +0-5106”, total area ‘‘0-8306”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-5106” shall be

substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. ‘‘80”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3400”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(v)

In survey no. ‘‘81”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0300”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. ‘‘82”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3000”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(vii)

In survey no. ‘‘83”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0100 +0-3772”, total area ‘‘0-3872”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-3772” shall be

substituted.

(viii)

In survey no. ‘‘49”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-7400”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(ix)

In survey no. ‘‘45”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-2300 +1-2880”, total area ‘‘1-5180”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘1-2880” shall be

substituted.

(x)

In survey no. ‘‘601/45”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0400”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL”

shall be substituted.

(xi)

In survey no. ‘‘46”, column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3600”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(D) against village ‘‘Bhommiyasar” , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. ‘‘301”, column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0200”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. ‘‘302”, column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-5600”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. ‘‘298”, column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0500”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. ‘‘297”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3300”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(v)

In survey no. ‘‘296”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0100”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(E) against village ‘‘Sadhasar” , in column 1,

(i)

In survey no. ‘‘526”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3100+0-4507”, total area ‘‘0-7607”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-4507” shall be substituted.

(ii)

In survey no. ‘‘527”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-2600+0-4370”, total area ‘‘0-6970”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-4370” shall be substituted.

(iii)

In survey no. ‘‘529”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-3800+0-3300”, total area ‘‘0-7100”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-3300” shall be substituted.

(iv)

In survey no. ‘‘538”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0500+0-0138”, total area ‘‘0-0638”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-0138” shall be substituted.

(v)

In survey no. ‘‘595”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-2100+0-6109”, total area ‘‘0-8209”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-6109” shall be substituted.

(vi)

In survey no. ‘‘2148/595”, in column 2, for the

areas ‘‘0-0500+0-0920”, total area ‘‘0-1420”, in

column 4, the area ‘‘0-920” shall be substituted.

(vii)

In survey no. ‘‘602”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-2100+0-2494”, total area ‘‘0-4584”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-2484” shall be substituted.

(viii)

In survey no. ‘‘604”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-2100+0-2254”, total area ‘‘0-4354”, in column

4, the area ‘‘0-2254” shall be substituted.

(ix)

In survey no. ‘‘597”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0200”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(x)

In survey no. ‘‘598”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-1900”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(xi)

In survey no. ‘‘599”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0800”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

(xii)

In survey no. ‘‘600”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘0-0500”, in column 4, the area ‘‘NIL” shall be

substituted.

[No. R-31015/47/2008-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1790-—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 6 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2350 rkjh[k 10&07&2002 ,oa

dk-vk- 1510(v) rkjh[k 17&06&2009 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k

ds Hkkx II, [k.M 3] mi&[k.M (ii) izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

mDr vf/lwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy tks/iqj**

(d) LrEHk 1 esa xk¡o ^^ukjok f[kfp;ku~**

4872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^4**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4

esa {ks=kiQy ^^9&03+12&09** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^21&12**

ds LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^12&09** j[kk tk;sxk A

(ii) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa

{ks=kiQy ^^2&08+1-14** dqy {ks=kiQy ^^4&02** ds

LFkku ij {ks=kiQy ^^1&14** j[kk tk;sxk A

¹la- vkj&31015@42@2008&vksvkj&IIº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1790.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the

following amendments in the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, S.O. 2350 dated 10-07-2002 and S.O. 1510(E)

dated 17-06-2009 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section

(ii) of the Gazette of India, namely:—

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil

Jodhpur:—

(A) against village ‘‘Narwa Khichiyan” , in column 1,

(i) in survey no. ‘‘4”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘9-03+12-09” total area ‘‘21-12”, in column 4, the

area ‘‘12-09” shall be substituted.

(ii)in survey no. ‘‘1”, in column 2, for the areas

‘‘2-08+1-14” total area‘‘4-02” in column 4, the area

‘‘1-14” shall be substituted.

[No. R-31015/42/2008-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1791-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947]

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vks-,u-th-lh- vle ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xksgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 05@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@1@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. Assam and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 19-7-

2013.

[No. L-30011/1/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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 O.N.G.C. Ltd., Sibsagar,

Assam

Vrs

Their Workmen represented by the Vice

President, ONGC Workers’ Association,

Sibsagar, Assam

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2008

APPEARANCES

For the Management

Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr.

Advocate

Mr. B.Das. Advocate

For the Union

Mr. A.M. Mazumder,

Advocate

Mr. M.J. Quadir, Advocate

Mr. S.Y. Ahmed, Advocate

A W AR D

Date of Award 28-6-13

1.This Reference Case is arising out of an Industrial

Dispute between the employer in relation to Management

of Assam Asset, ONGC Ltd., Nazira and their workmen in

respect of the claim raised by the Workmen through the

Union regarding regularization of service of six Junior

Technical Assistant (Boiler), which was referred by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India,

vide their Order No. L-30011/1/2008-IR(M);Dated:

05-05-2008 U/s 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act. 1947. The Schedule

of the Reference is as follows:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd. (Executive Director, Assam Asset, Nazira, Dist. Sivsagar

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4873

Assam) in not regularizing the services of 6 Jr. Technical

Assistants (Boiler) (List enclosed in Annexure-A) appointed

on contractual basis June, 1998 is justified or not? To what

relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Reference, Notices were served

upon both the parties who appeared and contested the

case filing their respective Claim Statement and Written

Statement. Both the sides adduced their evidence and also

argued their cases at length.

3. The case of the workmen, as it reveals from the

claim statement submitted by the Vice-President, ONGC

Workers Association, B.G.Road, Sivasagar, Assam, is that

14 numbers of Posts of Boiler Operators along with other

post were released in the year 1997 for filling up in ONGC,

ERBC, Assam Asset which forwarded the requisition for

recruitment of 7 Posts of Junior Assistant Technician

(Boiler) to the Assistant Director Employment, Jorhat,

Sivsagar, Sonari, Nazira and Mariani. Accordingly, 7

candidates were selected and appointed to the Post of

Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) on regular basis. After

recruitment of the 7 Junior Assistant Technicians (Boiler)

the ONGC Management again forwarded the requisition

for recruitment of 7 numbers of Junior Assistant Technician

(Boiler) on contract basis, to the Assistant Director,

Employment Exchange, Jorhat, Sivsagar, Sonari, Nazira and

Mariani. Accordingly the names of the 7 candidates namely

(1) Biswajit Das, (2) Mirajul Haque, (3) Taskinuddin Ahmed,

(4) Jogen Saikia, (5) Dambarudhar Gogoi, (6) Pranab Saikia

& (7) Bipul Dutta were sponsored, and they appeared before

the interview by the ONGC on 8-6-98 and were selected for

the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler).

Subsequently, the above named 7 candidates were

appointed for the period of six months on contractual basis.

On expiry of the period of six months the periods were

extended from time to time by six months in each count

with effect from the months of December, 1998 to 30-6-01

vide office order dated 4-1-1999, 16-7-99, 24-12-99 and

31-12-2000. After 04-10-2000 the Management of ONGC

extended the service of the said Junior Assistants

Technicians (Boiler) for the period of 4 years and engaged

the said Junior Assistant Technicians (Boiler) on tenure

basis without terminating the contract engagement

recommended for four years engagement. Again on expiry

of the above mentioned extension dated 31-12-2000 the

Management of ONGC extended their services on 3-10-05

for the period of 2 months till 30-11-05 vide order No.NZR/

Rectt/3(222)/TBG on previous terms and conditions. The

said period of engagement was further extended as terms

base employment Scheme by holding an interview on

20-11-05 and at that time the ONGC Management changed

the nomenclature of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler)

and renamed as Field Operator (Boiler) on 9-12-2005 to

which the aforesaid workers have been posted earlier since

1998 without changing the ONGC's recruitment and

Promotion Policy and the period of their Services was

extended for four years with a rider clause of 45 years of

age for termination of the service reducing the Pay Scale to

Rs. 5000 from Rs.5188. Then the aggrieved employees

approached the Management for regularization of their

services on 03-05-2001 and a proposal was recommended

and forwarded to the competent authority of the

Management for sanction to the regular post of Junior

Assistant Technician (Boiler). The Manager, Industrial

Engineering, Nazira recommended for 10 numbers of Junior

Assistant Technician (Boiler) for regular appointment being

perennial nature of works, and statutory obligation

regarding deployment of Boiler operators. In this

connection, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India

vide Notification dated 8-9-1994 file No. V230-B/4/92/W of

the Director General, Labour Welfare /Joint Secretary to

the Government of India Employment prohibited contract

labour of boiler operation along with other categories of

workers in the establishments of Oil & Natural Gas

Commission in the Country. As such, the Management of

ONGC did not engage the Boiler Operators either on

contractual or on tenure basis. Thereafter the ONGC

Workers Association, ERBC, Sivsagar, raised an Industrial

Dispute before the ALC (C), Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, on behalf of the above named 7

numbers of workmen. But the Management did not agree

to the proposal, as a result, the conciliation ended in failure.

Hence, the aforementioned workmen prayed for relief as

mentioned below:—

(1). The aggrieved employees have already served

the organization for nearly 10 years since 1998. They

rendered services in ONGC at par with a regular Boiler

Assistant Technician and as such, their services to be

regularized with effect from the date from which they

assumed the charges of Junior Technician (Boiler).

(2). The aggrieved employees should also be paid

the pay scale and annual increments and other fringe

benefits which are given to regular Jr. Asstt. Technician

(Boiler).

(3). After regularization their promotion to the next

higher post also be considered as per R & P 1997.

4. The Management of Assam Assett, ONGC Ltd.

Nazira, Sibsagar, on the other hand, submitted their written

Statement stating that a requisition dated 24-11-97 (vide

Exhibit-I) for recruitment of the total number of 7 Junior

Assistant Technician (Boiler) temporary on contract basis

for six months was issued, and the workmen (1) Biswajit

Das, (2) Mirajul Haque, (3) Taskinuddin Ahmed, (4) Jogen

Saikia, (5) Dambarudhar Gogoi, (6) Pranab Saikia & (7) Bipul

Dutta appeared in the interview for selection of suitable

candidates amongst the candidates, and they were engaged

purely on contractual basis on the terms and conditions

mentioned in the Memorandum dated 9-6-1998 ( Exhibit-2).

The workmen joined their duties submitting their respective

joining letters accepting all the terms and conditions

mentioned in the Memorandum dated 9-6-1998 wherein it

4874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is clear that the engagement of the said work is temporary

and for a fixed term, and they do not have any claim for

regularization. In the year 2001 the ONGC took a policy

decision for engagement of workers on a scheme of tenure

based engagement for the period of 4 years or upto the age

of 40 years whichever, is earlier; and the ONGC has held

interview in the year 2001 for engagement of qualified and

suitable persons under the same scheme with effect from

24-10-2001 for a period of 4 years on the terms and

conditions mentioned in the offer of tenure based

engagement vide Memo No.4-10-2001 (Exhibit-3). On expiry

of 4 years by 30-11-2005 the engagement of these workers

came to an end with the ONGC and subsequently the

workmen and employer relationship between the two parties

also came to an end. Again the Management of ONGC held

interview on 28-11-05 for filling up of certain posts of Filed

Operators (Boiler) on tenure basis and accordingly they

were appointed on the same terms and conditions as

appended in letter dated 9-12-05 (Exhibit-5). The workers

also agreed to the terms and conditions of their engagement

and they were aware of the fact that their service was

temporary in nature for the period of 4 years which comes

to an end on 8-12-09.

Further case of the Management is that the issue of

regularization of service as raised by the Union is not

tenable in the eye of law as weIl as the facts and

circumstances of the case, and the issue does not come

under the meaning and ambit of Industrial Dispute under

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 since there is no mention

of regularistion of service is an issue that can be adjudicated

under the Act and hence, no Provision of Industrial Dispute

Act has been violated between the parties. As such, the

Reference in question is bad in the eye of law. It is added

that the above mentioned workers entered in the service

knowing fully well that their engagement is purely on

temporary and such engagement will not give them any

right of regularization in their service; and the claim for

regularization from initial dates of joining in ONGC is not at

all tenable because the engagement for the period of six

months has since long expired. The Management further

stated that the worker~rongly stated in their claim statement

that the ONGC have extended the service of the said workers

upto 30-11-05 by order dated 24-10-2001, since after

30-6-2001 the engagement of the said workers was not

extended. In order to meet the exigencies of service and to

get quality workers the Management decided to go for

selection of eligible candidates through interview and the

Management took up policy decision for engagement of

workers under a scheme of tenure based engagement for

four years and the workers as mentioned above were

engaged afresh under the said scheme for which their

engagement in no way connected with the initial

engagement dated 9-6-98. The Management of ONGC in

order to meet the requirements of workers against the work

load, held an interview for engagement of Field Operator

(Boiler) on tenure basis for four years on 28-11-05 and the

aforementioned workers were found suitable and hence,

they were given fresh engagement as Field Operator(Boiler)

for four years upto 8-12-09 in terms of the letter dated

9-12-05. Accordingly the period of engagement of the said

workers completed by 8-12-09 and hence, the terms and

conditions also come to an end between the aforementioned

workers and the Management on that day.

The Management of ONGC, denying the claim of the

workers that their service was required continuously, added

that with the liberalization of economy, the situation has

been changing and the Parliament by passing the Oil &

Natural Gas Commission (Transfer of Undertaking) Act,1993

transferring the undertaking to the Corporation which is a

Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and the function

of the Company as a commercial entity in competition with

other global players searching for exploration, development

and production of hydrocarbons. As a result, the ONGC

requires obtaining exploration rights or licenses on the

basis of open competitive bidding with other global players

and as such, the availability of works depends upon the

successful bidding of the ONGC in global tender. Hence,

the claim made by the workers that the nature of works is

permanent in nature is not tenable. It is also contended by

the Management that the engagement of the

aforementioned workers from 9-6-98, 4-10-2001 and from

9-12-2005 is based on separate interview and selection and

their engagement is purely temporary on ad-hoc basis. Such

an engagement can not be said to be an extension from

9.6.98 and hence, it shall not give rise any right for regular

engagement in the ONGC as the nature of engagement was

purely temporary on ad-hoc and/or contractual basis for a

limited period. Therefore, the workers can not claim

regularization. It is also added by the Management that

regarding regularization of each of the said worker is

concerned the ONGC had already given them the said

benefit by conducting an interview for filling up of certain

posts of Jr. Assistant Technician (Production) and relaxation

of the upper age limit of the aforesaid workers and had

called them for the said interview held on 1.3.2008 but the

workers could not come out successful in the interview.

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the

Management prayed for rejecting the claim of the workmen

and to answer the Reference against the workmen

accordingly.

5. During the pendency of the proceeding the

workman Sk. Mirajul Haque has been appointed by the

Management in the ONGC to the Post of Junior Assistant

Technician (cementing) and in this connection a petition

was filed by the then Vice President, ONGC Workers

Association, Sibsagar with prayer for striking of the name

of Sk. Mirajul Haque from this Reference. Accordingly the

name of the workman Sk. Mirajul Haque has been struck

off vide order dated 22-4-2010. The Workmen Jogen Saikia

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4875

and Biswajit Das filed joint petition supported by an

Affidavit with prayer for dropping their names from the

Reference as they were appointed against regular post after

duly selected for the said post and hence, they are not

willing to continue the proceeding before this Tribunal.

Accordingly, their names were struck off vide order dated

25-4-2013 from the Reference. Subsequently the workman

Taskinuddin Ahmed also submitted petition through the

Union with prayer for allowing him to withdraw from the

proceeding as he has been appointed as Junior Assistant

Technician (Production) on regular basis by the

Management. Accordingly the name of the workman

Taskinuddin Ahmed has been struck off from the Reference

vide order dated 6-5-2013. As regards the workman Bipul

Dutta, Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned Advocate by a petition

dated 6-5-2013 stated that the workman Bipul Dutta expired

on 20-9-05 i.e. before Reference of the instant dispute by

the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, and the legal

heirs of the deceased workman did not pursue the case

during the trial before this Tribunal and as such, the case

of the workman Bipul Dutta was not pressed before this

Tribunal. Hence, Mr. Quadir prayed for striking of the name

of the workman Bipul Dutta from the proceeding. On perusal

of the order of Reference it appears that the dispute was

referred in connection with regularization of service in

respect of 6 Technical Assistant (Boiler) whereas in its

Annexure to the order of Reference it appears that there

are names of 7 workmen and the name of the workmen

Bipul Dutta is in the 7th position of the list; and the

information regarding death of the workman Bipul Dutta

has been received in black and white only on 6-5-2013 and

in the mean time none of the legal heirs of the deceased nor

the Union came forward. The Union also have not raised

this matter since after filing of the Reference. In view of the

above situation, at the instance of the Union, the name of

workman Bipul Dutta also has been dropped from this

Reference vide order dated 6-5-2013. Therefore, it is clear

that the workman Pranab Saikia and Dambarudhar Gogoi

are now on the fray.

6. In order to establish their respective cases the

workman examined altogether six witnesses while the

Management examined one.

Both the parties argued their cases at length.

7. Let us discuss the evidence adduced by both the

parties along with the documents exhibited in support of

their deposition.

The workman witness No.1, Sri Atul Chandra

Hazarika, the Vice-President of ONGC Workers Association,

Sibsagar stated that the Management released 14 numbers

of Post of Boiler Operators along with other Post in the

year 1997 and requisition for recruitment of 7 Posts of

Junior Assistant Technician ( Boiler) were forwarded to the

Employment Exchange, Jorhat, Sibsagar and Nazira.

Accordingly 7 candidates were selected and appointed to

the post of Junior Technician (Boiler) on regular basis.

Thereafter on 20-11-97 the Management submitted

requisition for sponsoring the name of the candidates for

recruitment to 7 numbers of Junior Technician (Boiler) on

contract basis to the Employment Exchange of Jorhat,

Sibsagar, Nazira, Sonari and Mariani vide Exhibit-B; and

the present workmen were selected for the Post of Junior

Assistant Technician (Boiler) vide Exhibit-C and Exhibit-

C(l). The appointment of the workmen was initially for a

period of six months and on expiry of the initial period of

six months the service of the workmen was extended from

time to time by the Management for a period of six months

on each count with effect from December,98 to 30.6.01 vide

orders dated 4-1-99; 16-7-99, 24-12-99, 30-6-01, 31-12-2000

vide Exhibits- D, Dl, D2, D3,D4 respectively. Thereafter, the

workmen were appointed by the Management for the first

time on tenure based for a period of 4 years on the

recommendation of the Selection Committee without

terminating the contractual agreement dated 9-6-94 vide

the Management order No. NZR/RECTT-3(322)/2000-01

(Exhibit-E). On expiry of the terms of the aforesaid

engagement the Management again extended the service

of the workmen for about 2 months till 30-11-2005 vide

Exhibit-F. Subsequently the Management of ONGC called

for an interview held on 28-11-05 and on being duly selected

the workmen were engaged as Field Operator '(Boiler) on

9-12-05 in stead of junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) to

which post they were initially engaged and were serving

from their initial date of engagement though the function

and duties of both the Posts are same but the Management

unlike the initial condition incorporated a new condition of

age as 45 years for termination of engagement if it occurs

before the expiry of the terms vide Exhibit-H.

8. The workmen witness No.1 further stated that the

workmen had been working as Junior Assistant Technician

(Boiler) under the Management since the Month of June,

1998, after being duly selected for the post they have been

shown as joined on 05-10-2001 instead of 1998, and though

the date of promotion has been shown as 5-10-01 and

01-04-06, in fact no promotion has been made to the service

of the workmen and on the contrary they have been

redesignated as Field Operator (Boiler) from the post of

Junior Assistant Technician (vide Exhibits-I & Exhibit-Ill).

The workmen submitted representation before the

Management on 03-05-2000 for regularization of their

services vide Exhibits-J and J/l but their claim was not

entertained. In the mean time the Management decided to

appoint a number of persons to different posts other than

the Post of Junior Technician( Boiler) and advertisement

has been made. While the workmen with a hope to avail

better facility applied for the post of Junior Assistant

Technician (Production) and accordingly Selection Test

was held in the said post, but the workmen's candidature

was not considered. Thereafter the workmen approached

4876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Hon'ble High Court on 12-5-2008 by filing a Writ Petition

being No.1828 of 2008 for regularization of their service but

the same was withdrawn by the workmen after receiving

the notice of instant Reference Case from this Tribunal. It

is also mentioned that the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour & Employment by Notification dated 08-09-1994

prohibited the employment of contract labour of Boiler

Operator along with other categories of work in the

establishment of the ONGC in the country vide Exhibit-L.

Thus the workmen are the employees of the Management

and they are not working under Contractor drawing their

salary directly from the Management and are governed by

the conditions of service of the Management of ONGC,

and they have the right to be regularized and covered by

the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil

Appeal No.(s) 4755 of 2001, G.M, ONGC, Silchar-vrs- ONGC

Contractual Workers Union.

In course of his cross-examination the W.W.l stated

that he knew the workmen Biswajit Das, Mirajul Haque,

Tasikuddin Ahmed, Jogen Saikia, Dambarudhar Gogoi. He

added that the workmen were engaged on contractual basis

and subsequently their engagement was made tenure

based which means four years period of engagement. He

categorically denied the suggestion tendered by the

Management that the workmen did not work for 240 days

in a year as there was a break of service and it was not a

continuous engagement. He admitted the fact that the

tenure based employment is the policy of the ONGC; and

as per the new exploration licensing policy, 1999 of the

Government of India, the Oil Blocks are sold in auction by

the Government of India. Prior to that the ONGC conducted

service of its own and approached the Government of India

and got it; and that there was no Private Sector Operator in

the Oil Sector. He also said that in the bidding process the

lowest bidder gets the work order. However, he denied that

because of the change of the policy of the Government of

India because of getting of Oil Block for a particular period

the employment are done for a particular period.

The workmen witness No. 2, Sri Pranab Saikia,

Workmen witness No. 3, Dambarudhar Gogoi, Workmen

Witness No. 4, Sri Jogen Saikia, Workmen witness No.5, Sri

Mirajul Haque, Workmen witness No. 6, Sri Biswajit Das &

workmen witness No. 7, Sri Taskinuddin Ahmed in course

of their depositions corroborated the entire testimony of

the workmen witness No. 1 except certain deviation in

respect of the information of their own. The workmen

witness No. 2, Sri Pranab Saikia, one of the claimants,

mentioned that on being sponsored by the Local

Employment Exchange they appeared before the interview

Board on 8-6-98 along with other candidates and he along

with the workmen witness Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were duly

selected and appointed by the Management as Junior

Assistant Technician (Boiler) in the year 1998 initially for a

period of six months. He also mentioned that Sri Bipul Dutta

was also appointed along with them and he died in the year

2005. The W.W. 2, 3,4, 5, 6 & 7 categorically stated that on

expiry of the initial period of six months their services was

extended from time to time by the Management by six

months each with effect from December,1998 to 30-6-01

vide order dated 4-1-99, 16-7-92, 24-12-99, 30-6-2000 and

31-12-2001 vide Exhibit-D, D1, D2, and D4. The above

mentioned workmen witness also said that the management

of ONGC called them for an interview for appointment to

the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) for four

years and after their selection they were engaged by the

Management for a period of 4 years; and on expiry of the

previous terms of the engagement on 3-10-05 the

management further extended their service till

30-11-05 vide their letter marked as Exhibit-F. Again the

management vide their letter dated 22-11-05 after holding

an interview engaged him along with other workmen as

Field Operator (Boiler) on 9-12-05 instead of Junior

Assistant Technician (Boiler) to which Post they were

engaged initially. In the mean time the Management unlike

the initial service condition incorporated their new

condition of age as 45 years for termination of engagement

if cross before the expiry of the term though there is no

such condition for the regular Junior Assistant Technician

(Boiler)/Field Operator. The above mentioned workmen

witnesses also categorically mentioned that they were

selected and appointed as regular Junior Assistant

Technician in the month of June,1998 and as they have

been discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the

competent authority they are entitled to be regularized and

although they claimed for regularization and submitted

representation on the issue before the Management their

grievances has not been entertained. It is also mentioned

by all the workmen witness that' they are the regular

employees working directly under ONGC and drawing their

salaries directly from the ONGC and hence, they have

acquired the rights to be regularized in their respective

services with effect from the date of initial appointment as

Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler). During the cross-

examination the workmen witness No. 2 Pranab Saikia said

that he had passed Higher Secondary and also passed

Technical Education. The workmen witness No.3

Dambarudhar Gogoi in course of his cross-examination

stated that he had passed the Higher Secondary examination

and the Management hold interview as per condition of

tenure based employment scheme for a period of 4 years

and he appeared but he could not remember the terms and

conditions of the appointment. He also said that on the

day of his deposition he had been working and getting

monthly salary of Rs.18,500 but he could not remember if

he was out of employment from 1-12-05 to 8-12-05. The

workmen witness No. 5 in his cross-examination said that

he passed matriculation examination. He admitted that he

was appointed initially for the period of six months and

thereafter he was appointed for a period of 4 years on term

based scheme and he again joined on 9-12-05 and since

then fresh terms and conditions of service was incorporated

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4877

by the management vide Exhibit-H and at that time he

appeared in the interview for the regular post of Junior

Assistant Technician (Production) but he was not selected

for the Post.

The workmen witness No. 6, Biswajit Das in his cross-

examination said that he is a matriculate and his

appointment was tenure based appointment for a fixed

period of 4 years on consolidated pay of Rs.16,500. He also

mentioned that the terms and conditions of appointment

are incorporated in Exhibit-H (The letter No. NZR/RECTT-

3(322)/1 BE/2005/2055 dated 9.12.05) but he did not

challenge the said document. He also said that he appeared

in the interview called for by the Management as per the

Circular marked as Exhibit-K for regular post of Assistant

Technical (Production) but he was not selected. The

workmen witness No.7, also in his cross-examination stated

that he joined on 9.12.05 for fixed period of 4 years after he

was selected in the interview on the last tenure based

appointment. He further mentioned that he is aware of the

terms and conditions of the Management letter marked as

Exhibit-H and that he filed this case on the basis of his

employment in the year 1998 and not on the basis of the

appointment in the year 2001 and 2005.

9. The Management in order to establish their case

examined Smt. Usha Prabakhar, the then Dy. Manager,

Recruitment and Promotion, Department of ONGC at Nazira

as Management witness No.1. According to Smt. Usha

Prabakhar (MW.1), the ONGC issued requisition dated

24.11.97 for recruitment of total number of7 Junior Assistant

Technician (Boiler) on contractual basis for six months vide

Exhibit-1 and the workmen were engaged accordingly as

per the terms and conditions mentioned in Clause-1, 2 and

3 of Memorandum dated 9-6-98 marked as Exhibit-2, for a

period of six months. Thereafter the Management hold

interview in the year 2001 for engagement of qualified and

suitable persons for boiler operation work and finding the

candidature of the workmen in question they were engaged

with effect from 24-10-01 for four years on terms and

conditions mentioned in the offer of tenure based

engagement as per terms and conditions mentioned in the

Memo No.NZR/Rectt-3(322)/2000-01 dated 4-10-01 vide

Exhibit-3. She further mentioned that in view of the

Regulatory frame work under the New Exploration Policy

of Government of India. The Director (HR) of ONGC vide

agenda item No.108.31 placed the following proposals

before the Board of Directors, (vide Exhibit-4) which were

approved:'

(i) To engage personnel on tenure basis to meet the

requirement of Rigman/Topman on Drilling and work over

rigs, other technical supports services and technical

support in Geophysical field parties etc.

(ii) Qualification-

(a) Matric with science with ITI in relevant trades

with preference to diploma holders in case of drilling crew

and technical support services.

(b) B. Sc. With relevant subjects for Geo-Science/

Scientific discipline.

(iii) the maximum age for recruitment will be 28 years

for general candidates which will be relaxed for SC/ST/

OBC candidates as per laid down policy.

(iv) The tenure-based employment will be for a period

of 4 years in view of the work schedule in exploration/

drilling activity in blocks awarded to ONGC under NELP/

nomination basis and also in view of the opinion given by

the legal expert, although HRM committee recommended

for initial engagement of 7 years.

(v) Depending upon ONGC'c needs and the

candidate's fitness, performance and conduct the tenure

based employee can be appointed afresh on tenure basis

for 4 years at a time upto the age of 45 years.

(vi) Tenure appointment will be restricted only to

field operations only viz, for drilling/work over Rigs/

Platforms, geo physical parties/repair and maintenance

crews etc.

Thereafter, the Management held an interview on

28-11-05 for filling up of certain Field Operators (Boiler) on

tenure basis for 4 years and accordingly the workmen were

appointed under the said Scheme as Field Operator (Boiler).

In support of this contention the Management

Witness No.1 has proved the terms and conditions of tenure

based engagement vide Exhibit-5.

It is contended by the Management witness No.1

that the claim for regularization of service raised by the

workers Association is not tenable in the eye of law as the

issue of regularization does not come within the meaning

and ambit of Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947. She also added that the workers joined the service

knowing fully well about the contention as their engagement

was purely temporary and adhoc basis and as such the

engagement shall not give any right of regularization in

service, since the claim for regularization from the initial

date of joining i.e. June,1998 in the ONGC is not tenable

because the engagement was for the period of six months

which expired long ago. The M.W.l denied the averment of

the Association that the ONGC extended the service of the

workmen up to 30-11-05 vide order dated 24-10-01. She

said that after 30-6-01 the engagement of the said workers

they never extended their service since the Management

of ONGC decided to select the eligible candidate through

interview, keeping in view of the workload, took up the

policy decision for engagement of works under a Scheme

of Tenure Based engagement for 4 years; and accordingly

the aforementioned workers were engaged afresh and they

were not in any way connected with the initial order dated

9-6-98. M.W. 1 also stated the workers were given fresh

engagement as Field Operator (Boiler) for a period of another

4 years upto 8-12-09 on the terms and conditions stipulated

4878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the letter marked as Exhibit-5. The Management witness

No.1 also mentioned that consequent upon the introduction

of new exploration license policy (in short NELP) by the

Government of India, Gazette Notification (Vide Exhibit-6)

dated 10-2-99 and 25-2-99 (Exhibit-7), the ONGC including

other Oil Company, bid for blocks to get exploration right,

and keeping in view with the liberalization policy of the

Government of India for attracting private investments in

the Oil and natural gas sector, ONGC requires obtaining

exploration rights or licenses on the basis of open

competitive bidding with other global players and hence,

the availability of works depends upon the successful

bidding of the ONGC, and the Company gets the exploration

rights has the option to abandon the block on completion

of phase -I of the programme under the above circumstances

the claim made by the workers Association that the nature

of their job is permanent in nature is not tenable and hence,

baseless.

The further plea of the Management Witness No.1 is

that the offer of engagement dated 9-6-98, 4-10-01 and

9-12-05 shows that each engagement is based on separate

interview and selection and their engagement is purely

temporary and such engagement can not be said as

extension from 9-6-98 and hence, there is no scope for the

said workers to claim for regularization. It is also stated

that as per the Certified Standing Order for contingent

employees of the ONGC the tenure based employee do not

come within the meaning of contingent employee.

The Management witness No.1 stated that the ONGC

had already given the workers concerned the benefit of

relaxation of age by calling them for written test for filling

up of certain post of Junior Assistant Technician

(Production) and relaxed the upper age limit of the said

workers and the workers also set in the written test held on

30-3-08 but they failed to qualify in the test. In this

connection she has proved the copies of call letters for

written test in respect of the workers vide Exhibit-8

(12 sheets). She added that the requirement of manpower

in the ONGC depends upon the availability of works subject

to successful bidding amongst the open competitive global

player's/bidder and the terms based/tenure based

engagement is made against the available work in the ONGC;

and hence, every engagement of the workers was on the

basis of distinct and separate order of engagement which

was followed by separate interview and selection process;

and the workers also voluntarily accepted the terms of

engagement knowing fully well that their engagement are

temporary and ad-hoc basis as such, on completion of

tenure, the said workers do not have any claim for

regularization in service.

In course of cross-examination the Management

witness No.1 stated that she deposed on the basis of the

record and the concerned workmen have been working

from the year 1998 on being appointed through a process

of recruitment by the ONGC. She also said that the ONGC

recruited Assistant Rigmen (Drilling), Junior Assistant

Technician and other similar type of workers on regular

basis in the year 2008 and some of these workmen are

working in the Oil field; and in the year 2009 they had

conducted a recruitment process when eligible persons for

the post of Field Operators were called upon for written

test but she could not remember whether the present

workmen appeared before the interview. The persons

concerned who were engaged for Boiler Operator and the

concerned workmen of this Reference are Boiler operators

who were given tresh tenure based engagement in the

month of January,2010 except Pranab Saikia as he was

declared medically unfit. She further mentioned that they

had conducted medical test for all the workmen on

completion of their tenure, they had examined whether these

persons are still suitable for work and whether their service

is still required in the ONGC; and after consideration their

previous performance and subject to medical fitness they

were given fresh engagement. It is further stated that they

do not have any procedure for regularization of service of

Field Workers and she is not aware whether the Government

of India had referred a dispute for regularization of

contractual workers working in the ONGC, Cachar Project

and this Tribunal also passed an Award in their favour and

ultimately the Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed that Award

which was reported in (2008) 12 SCC 275.The Management

witness denied the suggestion tendered by the workers

Association that they had regularized the services of

contractual 200 workers in their project at Silchar and that

about 150 contractual/temporary workers were regularized

recently at Jorhat. She also denied that some vacancies of

Boiler Operators on regular basis are still vacant.

10. I have perused the entire record along with the

records of Misc. Cases arising out of this Reference and

the evidence on record along with the written argument

submitted by both the parties. Also I have heard the oral

arguments placed by both the sides.

11. From the above discussion it is revealed that out

of the 7 contesting workmen the case of the workman Bipul

Dutta: has been dropped and the workmen Mirajul Haque,

Jogen Saikia, Taskinuddin Ahmed and Biswajit Das were

also struck off from this Reference at their instances, since

they were appointed on regular basis by the Management.

Now this Tribunal is to decide whether the action of the

Management of ONGC Ltd., Assam Asset in not regularizing

the service of the workmen namely Pranab Saikia and

Dambarudhar Gogoi who were appointed on contractual

basis since June, 1998 is justified or not. The evidence on

record shows that the workmen Dambarudhar Gogoi and

Pranab Saikia along with the other workmen were engaged

by the Management for a period of six months on contractual

basis and thereafter their engagement was extended from

time to time by six months in each count with effect from

December,1998 to 30-6-01 and thereafter the workmen were

engaged for the first time on tenure based scheme of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4879

engagement for a period of 4 years after holding interview;

and on expiry of the first tenure of 4 years again after holding

interview the workmen were engaged for a further period

of 4 years as Field Operator (Boiler) under the new tenure

based employment Scheme by the Management vide letter

No.NZR/Rectt-3(322)/2000-01 dated 4-10-2001 marked as

Exhibit-3. On scrutiny of the said document (Exhibit-3) it

appears that the workman Sri Pranab Saikia was engaged

on the recommendation of Selection Committee and medical

fitness certificate issued by the DGM(HS) for the Post of

Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) on tenure based in the

ONGC. In the said engagement letter the terms and

conditions were clearly mentioned that the workman was

appointed for a specific period of 4 years and the said

engagement can be extended further depending upon good

performance conducting medical fitness and work exigency.

However, the terms based engagement will automatically

comes to an end for the period of initial engagement but

the Corporation further can terminate the engagement at

any time by giving one month's notice or one month salary

in lieu thereof. The workman Dambarudhar Gogoi was also

appointed on tenure based as per the terms and conditions

as mentioned in Exhibit-3 in case of Pranab Saikia. The

policy of the tenure based appointment was taken up by

the ONGC in view of the introduction of New Exploration

Licensing Policy adopted by the Government of India vide

Gazette Notification marked as Exhibits-6 & 7. The Board

of Directors of ONGC introduced the tenure based

engagement policy vide Agenda Item No.108.31 vide

Exhibit-4 which was approved and thereby the provision

for creation of new cadre of tenure based employment in

non executive category was introduced, as per the terms

and conditions of the new tenure based engagement policy'

as mentioned in Exhibit-4. It was decided by the Board of

Directors that on completion of tenure based engagement

further extension for a subsequent period of 8 years or

7 years but 100 beyond 45 years of age can be allowed. In

Exhibit-8 series, it appears that the workmen Dambarudhar

Gogoi and Pranab Saikia along with others were called for

an interview for the post of Junior Assistant Technician

( Production) held on 30.3.08 vide ONGC's Letter No. NZR/

Rectt. 3(451)/2007(91956) dated 1-3-08 and No. NZR/Rectt.

3(451)/2007(91961) dated 1-3-08 respecively; and except

Prana Saikia, since he was found medically unfit, remaining

workmen were given fresh tenure based engagement in the

month of January, 2010 as it appears from the evidence on

record.

In course of argument Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned

Advocate for the workmen submitted that the workment

were initially engaged for a period of six months and their

engagement was extended phase wise for six months on

each count up to 31-12-2000 and thereafter on

recommendation of Selection Committee the workment were

engaged for the period of 4 years and thereafter their

engagement was extended for further period fo 2 months

till 30-11-05; and again their engagement was extended for

another period of 4 years after holding an interview on

28-11-05; and as such, being the continuous workers under

the Management since June, 1998 the workmen have

acquired the right of regularization. In this connection Mr.

Quadir relied upon the case of General Manager, ONGC,

Silchar-vrs-ONGC Contractual Workers Union reported in

2008 (12) SCC 275, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

upheld judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court and the Award of this Tribunal whereby

this Tribunal held that the members of the Union were indeed

the employees of ONGC and direction was accordingly

issued that their service be regularized in phased manner.

Mr. Quadir further mentioned that the job of the workmen is

of perennial and not of temporary nature for which the

workmen have been continuously working and as such, the

Management without terminating or discontinuing their

services have been extending time to time since June,1998.

He also pointed out that the workmen on being sponsored

by Employment Exchange, are duly qualified persons

appointed after selection against the vacant sanctioned post

and subsequently they failed in the interview for the post of

Junior Assistant Technician (Production) in the year 2008 as

departmental candidates but the workmen are also subject

to field transfer from one field to another like the regular

employees for which they are entitled to be regularized.

Mr. Quadir again relied upon the Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Ors.-vrs-Umadevi and Ors. reported in

2006(4) SCC 1 wherein it was held that the Union and the

State Governments and their instrumentalities are to set in

motion the process for regular recruitment in cases where

temporary or daily wagers were employed against vacant

sanctioned post, within six months of the date of the said

judgment; and that the cases of regular appointment (no

illegal appointment) of duly qualified persons in duly

sanctioned vacant post who had continued to work for 10

years or more but without the intervention of the orders of

the Courts or Tribunal, may have to be considered for

regularization on merit in the light of the principle laid down

in the case as a one time measure within six months. He

also quoted the observation made in that case (Umadevi's)

relying upon B.N. Nagarajan -v- State of Karnataka (1979)

4 SCC 507 that what is sought for by temporary employee

when they approached the Court is to issue of a Writ of

Mandamus directing the employer, State or its

instrumentalities, to absorb them in a permanent service or

to allow them to continue; and at this juncture, it was held

that a Mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to

do something; it must be shown that statute imposes a

legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a

legal right under the statutes or Rule to enforce it, and

Mandamus can be issued in favour of the employees

directing the government to make them permanent since

the employees can not show that they have an enforceable

right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a

legal duty to make them permanent. Mr. Quadir also

4880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submitted that the workmen were engaged by the

Management without violating the Provisions of Article

14, Article-19 and Article-309 of the Constitution of India

and they were appointed as per the procedure prescribed

in the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulation,1980

against the sanctioned post and hence, in the light of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's Case

the workmen are entitled to be regularized.

Again Mr. Quadir, learned Advocate for the Union,

pointed out that the workmen had been working for a long

period since 1998 to 2008 and they are entitled to be

regularized and in this connection he relied upon the

decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar

Pradesh and Ors-vrs-Desh Raj reported in 2007 (I) SCC

257; and Municipal Corporation, Jabbalpur-vrs-- Om

Prakash Dubey reported in 2007 (I) SCC 373 and State of

M.P. and Ors-vrs-Lalit Kumar Verma published in 2007 (1)

SCC 575.

12. Mr. G.N. Sahewala, learned Senior Advocate, on

the other hand submitted that the workmen were initially

engaged for a period of six months and they joined knowing

fully well that their conditions of engagement is temporary

in nature. Subsequently they were engaged on tenure based

as per the policy decision of the ONGC regarding

engagement of workers under a scheme of tenure based

engagement for a period of 4 years or upto the age of 45

years which ever is earlier consequent upon the

introduction of New Exploration License Policy by the

Government of India and automatically the terms of

engagement of the workers came to an end by 8-12-09 and

hence, the claim of the workers for regularization from the

initial date of joining i.e. June, 1998 in the ONGC is not at all

tenable. He further mentioned that the workers concerned

were given opportunity for uesh engagement under the

Scheme and they were interviewed for filling up of certain

posts of Junior Assistant Technician (production). The

ONGC considered the issue of age and relaxed the upper

age limit of the aforesaid workers and called them for

interview held on 1-3-2008 but they could not come out

successfully in the said interview. As such, the workmen

are not entitled for regularization. In support of his

argument Mr. Sahewalla relied upon the following cases

namely:

State of Himachal Pradesh-vrs-Nodha Ram and Ors

reported in AIR 1997 SC 1445, Pr-4 wherein it was held that

when the project is completed and closed due to non-

availability of fund, the employees had to go along with its

closure, and the High Court, was not right in giving

direction for regularization them or to continue them in

other place. No vested right is created in temporary

employment and such direction would amount to creating

a post in continuing them despite non-availability of

work.

In Rajendra & Ors-vrs---State of Rajasthan & Ors

reported in (1999) 2 SCC 317, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that when Posts temporarily created for fulfilling

the need of a particular project or scheme limited in its

duration come to an end because need for the project comes

to an end either the project was fulfilled or had to be

abandoned wholly or partially for want of fund, the

employer can not by a writ of mandamus be directed to

continue employing such employees as have been

dislodged because such a direction amounts to requisition

for creating of post though not required by the employer

and finding such posts though the employer did not have

funds available for the purpose.

It was decided in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

Ltd. -vs-Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408 that the Court can not create

posts and the Court can not impose on the State a financial

burden by insisting on regularization or permanence, when

those employed temporarily are not need permanently or

regularly.

In Gangadhar Pillai-vrs-Siemens Ltd. (2007) I SCC

533, it was obsered that it is not now the law that on

completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year the

employees concerned became entitled to regularization of

service and/or permanent status of works.

In Gurbachan Lal-vs-Regional Engineering College,

Kurukhetra & Ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 102, wherein it

was held that since the service of the Appellant was

temporary in nature appointment under a scheme which

had come to an end and he had joined the service in

complete recognition and acceptance of the condition and

former had already accepted fresh engagement on the basis

of a new scheme, it can not be said the termination of his

service was invalid in law, Court can not direct continuity

of Scheme for keeping the appellant in service.

13. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Advocate for the

Management pointed out-that during the pendency of this

proceeding the workmen namely Mirajul Haque,

Taskinuddin Ahmed, Jogen Saikia and Biswajit Das were

appointed afresh by the Management against regular

vacancy and the remaining workmen namely Pranab Saikia

and Dambarudhar Gogoi were not appointed by the

Management as the workman Pranab Saikia was found

medically unfit for holding Technical Post and as per the

direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No.

5028/2010 said Pranab Saikia was engaged in a non-

technical post on tenure based in the same rank and pay;

and the workman Dambarudhar Gogoi was also found unfit

for the post of Field Operator, (fresh tenure) as per the

guide lines of the medical examination for recruitment of

Field Operator (Tenure basis) and hence, on completion of

his tenure Sri Dambarudhar Gogoi, Field Operator (tenure

based) was struck off from the Role of ONGC with effect

from 7-1-2012. Mr. Sahewalla also pointed out that the

workman Dambarudhar Gogoi approached this Tribunal

for directing the Management to engage the petitioner in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4881

Misc. Case No. 1/2010 in the light of the order dated

9-6-2011 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5028/20l0 and the said

prayer was turned down by this Tribunal vide its order

dated 17-1-2013 passed in Misc. Case No.1/2012. Under

the above circumstances Mr. Sahewalla contended that

the workmen Dambarudhar Gogoi and Pranab Saikia are

not in any way entitled to regularization as claimed.

14. From the evidence on record as well as the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by both the

parties and the order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

dated 9-6-2011 passed in W.P (C) No.5028/20l0 and this

Tribunal order dated 17-1-2013 passed in Misc. Case No.l/

2012 (arising out of this Reference Case) it is found that the

workmen were initially engaged purely on temporary basis

for fixed period of six months on each counts and thereafter

they were engaged afresh under tenure based engagement

scheme for a period of 4 years on 2 occasions and

subsequently out of these workmen 4 of them were engaged

afresh against regular vacancy observing the existing

procedure of the Management. One of the workman namely

Pranab Saikia was also engaged against non-technical post

on the same grade and scale on tenure base except the

contesting workman namely Dambarudhar Gogoi. Said

Dambarudhar Gogoi is also found medically unfit for

holding for getting tenure based engagement by the

Management and he was struck off from the Role of the

ONGC on completion of the earlier term of his tenure based

engagement. Thus the workman Dambarudhar Gogoi has

been out of engagement with effect from

7-1-2012 as he failed to fulfill the terms and conditions set

by the Management regarding fresh engagement on tenure

basis. Further, the nature of initial engagement of the

workmen was purely temporary and their subsequent

engagement was made under tenure based scheme for

which they were well aware of the consequence of their

engagement and they joined their duties with knowledge

that they will be dis-engaged on completion of their tenure

period. There is also noting on record to show that the

workmen were initially engaged in any regular vacancy.

From the oral submission as well as the written argument

submitted by the learned Advocate for the Management it

is found that the engagement of the workmen was not

continuous as there are breaks in engagement.

The evidence on record also shows that the

Management of ONGC has introduced Modified

Recruitment and Promotion Regulation and the policy for

engagement of workmen on tenure basis, consequent upon

the New Exploration License Policy introduced by the

Government of India and hence, the Management has been

engaging persons on the basis of their requirement

considering the uncertainty in the field of global contest in

exploration of Oil and Natural Gas.

In view of the ration decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court (1) 2006 (4) SCC 1, Secretary, State of Karnataka and

Ors.-vs-Uma Devi and Ors. (2) State of Himachal Pradesh-

vs-Nodha Ram and Ors reported in AIR 1997 SC 1445; (3)

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -vs- Workmen, Indian

Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) I SCC 408; (4)

Gangadhar Pillai -vs-'-Siemens Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 533 and in

(5) Gurbachan Lal-vs-Regional Engineering College,

Kurukhetra & Ors (2007) 11 SCC 102 as discussed above, I

find no force in the argument advanced by the learned

Advocate for the workmen.

15. The evidence of the workmen witness shows that

they were well aware of the terms and condition of Modified

Recruitment and Promotion Regulation wherein the

provision for tenure based engagement of the workmen

has been provided. It is also found admitted that

consequent upon the introduction of the New Exploration

Licensing Policy 1999 adopted by the Government of India

the oil Blocks are sold in auction to the lowest bidder for

which the employment are given for a particular period.

Further the Management of ONGC also can not be forced

to regularize the workmen without having any sanctioned

post. Admittedly the workmen who were engaged for field

survey work employee for a fixed period on the basis of the

availability of works, the Court can not issue direction to

the Management of ONGC to absorb or regularize the

temporary or ad-hoc workmen. In a catena of cases Hon'ble

Supreme Court has been pleased to held that when

appointment was purely ad-hoc and contractual basis for a

limited period, on expiry of the period right to remain in

service came to an end and regularization can not be a

mode of recruitment.

16. It is also found that as per the policy of the

Management the engagement of the workmen depends

upon the fulfillment of the conditions such as :

(a) they should be medically fit to perform field duty

and medical fitness certification needs to be issued by the

ONGC Medical Officer;

(b) Their performance should be satisfactory with

favourble recommendation of the Key Executive;

completion of fresh tenure.

In the instant case both the workmen Pranab Saikia

and Dambarudhar Gogoi were found unfit medically for

engagement even in any fresh tenure based engagement.

It appears from the order dated 9-6-2011 passed by the

Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.5028/2010 that there was

no dispute at the Bar that the workman Pranab Saikia had

been suffering from colour blindness or at any area partial

colour blindness and there also no dispute that the workman

of Boiler Operator is technical service in ONGC and the

Hon'ble High Court upon expression of the Management

side that they were ready to engage the workman Pranab

Saikia on tenure bases for a Post which is eligible for

appointment and hence, the Hon'ble High Court directed

4882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Management of ONGC to accommodate the workman

Pranab Saikia in any other non-technical post on tenure

basis preferably on the same rank and pay within a period

of three months from the date of order. The workman

Dambarudhar Gogoi was struck off from the Role of ONGC

with effect from 7-1-2012 on completion of his term of tenure

based engagement an subsequently he was not engaged

due to failure to fulfill the conditions for re-engagement.

It is also found well established that the engagement

of the workman was purely for a limited period i.e. tenure

based and hence, on expiry of the period right to remain in

service came to an end and regularization can not be a

mode of recruitment.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and having regard to the discussion and the findings

arrived at as above, and taking into account the ratio of the

judgments pronounced by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court as

mentioned above, it can safely be held that the workmen

have not been able to establish that they were engaged in

any sanctioned post and the Management engaged the

workmen according to their requirement and volume of

works as per the provision of the Recruitment Policy

adopted by their Competent Authority. Under the above

circumstances, it can be concluded that the action of the

Management ONGC Ltd. ( Executive Director, Assam Asset,

Nazira, Dist-Sivsagar, Assam) in not regularizing the service

of 6 Jr. Technical Assistants (Boiler) appointed on

contractual basis in the Month of June, 1998 is justified

and accordingly the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Hence, this Reference is answered in favour of the

Management.

Send the Award to the Government immediately as

per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

28th day of June, 2013, at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1792-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ LVhy

vFkksfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM] jkmjdsyk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookkn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ]Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29011@53@2012&vkbZvkj(,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubansewar now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Steel authority of India Ltd.,

Rourkela and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 19-7-2013.

[No. L-29011/53/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G. I.T.-

cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 10/2013

Date of Passing Order- 28th June, 2013

Between:

The Chief Executive Officer, SAIL,

Rourkela Steel Plant, Po. Rourkela,

Dist. Sundargarh

......1st Party-Management

AND

Their workmen represented through the

General Secretary, Rourkela Shramik Sangh,

Shramik Mandir, Qrs, No. D-81, Rourkela—

769 003

.....2nd Pratry-Union

Appearaneces:

For the 1st Party-Management

....

None

For the 2nd Party-Union

....

None

ORDER

Case taken up Parties are absent. The 2nd Party-

Union has not filed any statement of claim, though a period

of four months has expired from the date of receipt of the

letter of reference. Two notices, one through regd. post

and the other through speed post were sent to the 2nd

Party-Union on 22-3-2013 and 30-5-2013 respectively. But

the 2nd Party-Unoin took no pains to appear and take

any steps for further prosecuting its case. For want of

pleadings the case cannot be proceeded with for

adjudication of the matter in dispute. The indifference and

negligence on the part of the 2nd Party-Union leaves no

option for this Tribunal except to close the case. There

may be the reasons for the 2nd Party-Union not to appear

and file statement of claim as it might have settled the

dispute amicably out of court with the Management. Hence

in such a situation the reference is to be decided by passing

a no-dispute award.

2. The reference is answered in the above terms.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4883

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1793-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksaZjs'ku fyfeVsM eqEcbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&2]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@59@2006&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the M/s. Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 19-07-2013.

[No. L-30011/59/2006-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT -2/55 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

The Executive Director Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Ltd. (Refinery) Mahul, Mumbai- 400 074.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

(1 )

The General Secretary Bharat Petroleum

Corporation (Refinery) Employees Union

Navgire Niwas, Behind Shalimar Hotel Mahul,

Chembur Mumbai-400 074.

(2)

The General Secretary Bharat Petroleum

Process Technicians & Analysts Union G-9,

Mahul Sea Breeze CHS Bahari Colony, Mahul

Mumbai - 400 074.

(3)

The General SecretaryBharat Petroleum

Technical and non-Technical Employees'

Association Flat No.502, Saileela RCF Road Anik

Village, Chembur Mumbai-400 074.

(4)

The Vice President Petroleum Workmen's Union

C/o. C-3, Rashmi Complex Near Mental Hospital

Thane-400 604.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER Mr. R.S. Pai, Advocate.

FOR THE UNION NO.1 Mr. P.I. Haldankar,

Representative.

FOR THE UNION NO.2 Mr. Kamlesh Singh,

Representative.

FOR THE UNION NO.3 Ms. Susan Abraham,

Advocate.

FOR THE UNION No.4 Ms. Sadhana Dharkar,

Representative.

Mumbai, dated the 13th June, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-30011/59/2006-IR (M), dated

16.10.2006 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 demand of the union for considering

the provisions of both the clauses i.e.clause 4.1 and clause

5.2 in determining the cases of pay anomalies as per clause

32 of the said settlement dated 24-09-2001 is proper and

justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference both the parties

were served with notice of the reference. The second party

unions appeared through their legal representatives and

union no.3 filed their statement of claim at Ex-5 and union

nos.1,2 & 4 filed their joint Statement of Claim at Ex-7.

First. party management resisted the statement of claims

of the unions by filing their written statement at Ex-9.Both

parties led their evidences. Thereafter both parties filed

their written arguments and the matter was fixed for oral

argments.

3.Today, Mr. R.S.Pai, Advocate for the management

alongwith Mr.P.I.Haldankar representative of union no.1,

M. Kamlesh Singh representative of Union no.2, Mr. K.A.

Nair representative of union no.3 and Ms. Sadhana Dharkar

representative of union no appeared before this Tribunal

and filed joint application (Ex-39) for taking the matter on

4884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

today's board. Orders were passed on Ex-39 and the matter

was taken up on the board. Both the parties jointly filed

application (Ex-40) stating that the matter has been amicably

settled as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 31-05-2013

and therefore prayed to dispose of the reference. Since the

dispute is settled, I think it proper to dispose of there ference

for want of prosecution. Hence the order :

ORDER

The reference is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 13-06-2013

K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1794-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksaZjs'ku fyfeVsM eqEcbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&II]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@77@2006&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Mumbai -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the M/s Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 19-07-2013.

[No. L-30011/77/2006-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/21 OF 2007

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

And

Their Workman (D.H.Gharat)

Appearances:

For the Management : Shri R.S.Pai, Adv.

For the Union : Shri Abhay Kulkarni, Adv.

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 19th of June 2013.

AWARD PART I

This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the management has conducted a fair and

orderly course of disciplinary proceedings against the

workman? Is the punishment inflicted upon a result of the

past incidences and settled events connected to workman?

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled for?”

According to the statement of claim filed by Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Employees' Union (CITU)

(hereinafter referred to as the Union) the workman

D.H.Gharat at the relevant time was employee with Bharat

Petroleum Corporation limited (hereinafter referred to

as the Corporation) at its BPCL LPG filling plant, Uran

as General Operative. The workman was issued

chargesheet on 29-3-2005 wherein it was alleged that on

13.3.2005, when the Corporation had arranged office

picnic consisting of officers and workmen at Mankeshwar

Beach near Uran, the workman assaulted M.V.Nandanwar

an officer of the Corporation. The officers of the

Corporation, after the chargesheet was issued to the

workman, convinced the workman that if he admitted the

charges he would not be dismissed from service whereas

if he chose to deny the charges the Corporation would

not take it in proper spirit and after a farce departmental

enquiry the Corporation would dismiss him. The workman

got petrified and apologized to the Corporation. The

apology, therefore, was not voluntary. The workman never

committed any misconduct. The alleged incident did not

take place within the premises of the Corporation and had

no bearing with the official business of the Corporation. It

is well settled that the employer is not vested with the

powers to take disciplinary action against an employee if

the alleged incident did not occur within the premises of

the employer or has no bearing to the business of the

employer. Drinks were served in the picnic and the officer

alleged to have been assaulted consumed alcohol in large

quantity. No police complaint was lodged against the

workman and no medical certificate of the officer was

obtained.

The Corporation examined only officers as its

witnesses though a large number of workmen were also

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4885

present at the picnic.The workman led oral evidence of the

workmen present there to prove that he did not assault the

officer and in fact the officer slipped from a chair and in

order to save the officer the workman himself slipped and

fell upon the officer. The enquiry was held against the

principles of natural justice as the Enquiry Officer ignored

the evidence led by the workman and the workman was not

given fair and proper opportunity to defend himself. The

DisciplinaryAuthority concurred with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer with complete non-application of mind. It

has, therefore, been prayed that the workman be reinstated

with full back wages and continuity of service and all

other consequential benefits.

According to the written statement. filed by the

Corporation the workman was issued chargesheet under

Certified Standing Orders for serious acts of misconduct.

The workman fully participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer found the workman guilty of the charges levelled

against him. The enquiry report was sent to the workman

and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued the order

of dismissal in accordance with law. The allegations

contained in the chargesheet were admitted by the

workman and the charges stood proved before the Enquiry

Officer. As the incident of assault took place during the

course of office picnic such assault had serious

repercussions with regard to discipline in the premises of

the Corporation. Assaulting a superior officer by a

workman is serious misconduct and the punishment of

dismissal for such misconduct is legal, proper and valid.

The enquiry was held in accordance with principles of

natural justice.

The Corporation has denied all the averments made

in the statement of claim and has prayed that the reference

be dismissed.

Following Issues have been framed.

(l)

Whether the management has not conducted

a fair and orderly course of disciplinary

proceedings against the workman?

(2)

Whether the findings given by the Enquiry

Officer are perverse?

(3)

Whether the punishment is justified?

(4)

Relief ?

The Union has filed affidavit of the workman

D.S.Gharat and he has been cross-examined by learned

counsel for the Corporation. The Corporation has filed

affidavit of Alok Kumar Nandi and he has been cross-

examined by learned counsel for the workman.

Heard Shri Kulkarni learned counsel for the workman

and Shri Pai learned counsel for the Corporation.

Issues Nos.1 & 2 : Both the Issues can be decided

together.

The charge against the workman is that he abused

and assaulted M.V.Nandanwar an officer of the Corporation.

The Corporation examined four witnesses and the workman

also examined four witnesses in the enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer Aloke Kumar Nandi has stated in his affidavit that

on the basis of oral and documentary evidence he submitted

his report and findings dt.8-3-2006 to the Disciplinary

Authority. The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty

of the charges levelled against him.

The workman has stated in his cross-examination:

This is correct that I was issued chargesheet Ex.W-1.

I filed reply of the chargesheet which is EX.M-2. Bhaskar

Patil was my defence representative in the enquiry. This is

correct that statements of the four witnesses produced by

the management in the enquiry were recorded in my

presence and my defence representative Bhaskar Patil

cross-examined them. I also produced four witnesses and

their statements were recorded by the Enquiry Officer

correctly. This is correct that I was given a copy of every

enquiry proceeding. This is correct that I did not complain

regarding anything recorded in the enquiry proceedings.

This is correct that a copy of enquiry report was furnished

to me. This is correct that EX.M-3 is my reply of the enquiry

report. This is correct that I did not file any appeal against

the order of Disciplinary Authority Ex. M-4.

The above statement shows that the workman was

given full opportunity to defend himself. It is also clear

from the perusal of the enquiry report that the enquiry

report is based on the evidence available on the record.

Shri Kulkarni has argued that the enquiry should have

been held in Marathi. He has contended that the

Corporation examined only officers and did not produce

any workman and, therefore, their version should not have

been believed as the victim was also an officer. He has also

contended that the Enquiry Officer should not have found

the workman guilty in the absence of medical evidence.

As regards the language of the enquiry the Enquiry

Officer Aloke Kumar Nandi has stated in his cross-

examination:

This is correct that enquiry was conducted in English

but there was a translator who translated from Marathi to

English and English to Marathi”.

As there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of

the Enquiry Officer I am of the opinion that the workman

4886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was not at all prejudiced on the ground of enquiry being

held in English.

The Enquiry Officer has discussed and analyzed the

evidence on the record including the evidence produced

by the workman and surely in these circumstances non-

production of any workman by the Corporation neither

vitiates the enquiry nor cause any prejudice against the

workman.

In a case of causing any visible injury medical

evidence might be produced to corroborate the oral

testimony but in the case of assault like this medical

evidence was not necessary. Assault can be proved without

medical evidence.

It is thus clear that the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the workman have no force.

There is no ground to assume that the punishment

has been inflicted upon the workman as a result of past

incidents and settled events.

It is clear from the above discussion that a fair and

orderly disciplinary proceedings were held against the

workman and there is absolutely nothing on the record to

show that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are

perverse.

Issues nos. 1 and 2 are, therefore, decided in favourr

of the corpoation and against the workman.

Award Part- I is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE. G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1795-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2]/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 310@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15&05&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@132@99&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 310/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad 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 15-05-2013.

[No. L-12012/132/99-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec. 10 (1) (d)

of the I. D. Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 310 OF 1999

PARTIES : Employer in relation to the management of

Bank of India, Giridih and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workamn : Late S. N. Sinha, Ld.

Adv.

On behalf of the management : D. K. Verma, Ld.

Adv.

State : Jharkhand Industry: Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th April, 2013

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1)

(d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

12012/132/99-IR(B-II) dt. 26-10-1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Bank of India,

Giridih region in terminating Shri Baiju Ram S/o Late Pyari

Ram of village Mirzaganj, Dist. Giridih from service instead

of considering him for regularsation although he has

worked for 1654 days in the Bank as Badli Sepoy against

clear vacancy, is justified ? If not what relief he is entitled

to?.”

2. The case of workman Baiju Ram as stated in his

written statement is that he was engaged as Sepoy and

empanelled by the Bank of India at Mirzaganj Branch of

Giridih District as per the letter No. Kahsetriya Karyalaya/

Giridhi Karmik SKM/054 dt. 3-1-1986. He worked there from

time to time for more than 1654 days upto 27-11-1991 as per

Certificate of the Branch Manager. He continuouslly worked

for more than 240 daya in a bolck of twelve months from

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4887

July, 1988 to June, 89, July 89 to June ’90 and Jan. to Nov.

1991. During tenure of work, he was paid on pro-rata basis

including Spl. Allowance applicable as par the settlement

between the Bank of India Employees Union (Bihar State)

and the Management of the Bank of Bihar Gone at that

time. As per the settlement, all persons empanelled in 1985-

86 would be regularised against vacnacy of subordinate

staff whenever would arise in particular area. Almost all

persons either empanelled on engaged as Badli Sepoy were

already regualarised long back. He had been getting

assurance from the Higher Authortities of Giridih Region

time. to time. Being aggrieved with the action of the

management, the Union raised the Industrial Dispute after

its failure in conciliation. The action of the Management in

not regularising is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Thus,he

claimed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages

of the idle period. But the workman appears to have

personally raised the I.D.

3. The workmen in his rejoinder specifically denying

the allegations of the Opp./ Management has stated that

he was appointed as Badil Sepoy on 3-1-1986 at Giridih

Branch of Bank of India and used to work as Sepoy in

Mirzaganj, Kharagdiha and Chatro of Giridih Region, but

he was not asked for any kind Educational Certificate in

course of alleged interview. He had been working against

permanent vacancy of the staff who went on Leave or full

sick. Being sincere and honest in his job, he continuously

worked from 3-1-1986 to Nov., 1991 total 630 days upto

16-3-1988. His total attendances 245,270 and 320 days in

the period from July, 1988 to July,1989, July 1989 to June,

1990 1st Jan. to Nov. 1991 respectively. He got conduct

and character Certificate for his satisfactory performance

as the letters dt. 27-4-1991 and 16-11-1989 of the Branch

Manager and the Regional Manager of Mirjaganj and Giridih

respectivelly.

4. Whereas with challenge to the legally

maintainability of the present reference, the contra pleaded

case of the Opp/Management is that the concerned

workman was empanelled as badli Sepoy in the cluster

comprising of three Branches of MirzaganJ, Kharagdiha

and Chatra of Bank of India under Giridih Region as per

the order dt. 16-1-1986 of the Zonal Manager, Bihar State.

The workman had submitted his application for inclusion

of his name as Badli Sepoy in any cluster of the Bank of

India under Giridih Region, and enclosed the particulars of

his Identification, Educational Qualification along with the

School Certificate of Class VIII Pass, the minimum requistion

for empanellment as Badli Sepoy to be engaged against

Leave and Sick Vacancy or against any additional

requirement. In course of the engagement after

empanelment, a preport was received about him to have

submitted a false and of fabricated cerficate insupport of

his education qualification. At the enquiry into matter, it

was found non-existent of allaged Adarsh Madhya

Vidyalaya, Gardanibagh, Patna and the fabrication of

certificate with same ulterior motive to get empanlled as a

Badli Sepoy for employment as also accepted by the

workman. Therefore he was not given further engagement

in any branch of the cluster. He was never engaged against

any permanent vacancy. post in any of the branches, no

additional post of Sub-staff was required. Rather he was

engaged purely and Sick vacancy as such there was no

scope for his permanent absorption in any branch. The

performance of Badli Sepoy is adjudged and if suitable in

all respects, his case is considered for his permanent

absorption subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions. A

Badli Sepoy is engaged for a stipulated period during Leave

and Sick Vacancy of a Sub-staff and after expiry of that

period, his service stands automatically terminated. Thus

it is a case of discontinuation or providing engagement as

a Badli Sepoy tothe workman, as the management could

not repose confidence on his in view of submitting his

false and fabricated educational certificate of non-existence

of school. So the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. The Opp./ Managment in its rejoinder categorically

denied the allegations of the workman, and stated that it is

not a reference arising out of an industrial dispute, rather

is a case of industrial dispute u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947 .

The present case of not providing engagement as a Badli

Sepoy form time to time after detection of his fraudulent

and does not amonst to termination of service. Such issue

is not and I. D. under termination of service. Such issue is

not and I. D. Undere siad provision of the Act. The alleged

certicate pruported to be issued by the than Manager of

Mirzaganj Branch appears to be not genuine inview of the

facts and signature. The management paid wages on pro-

rate basis according to number of hour of engagement

per day and number of days worked by him. The workman

was unsuitable for employement a Badil Sepoy on account

of his fraudulent conduct and loss of confidence. So the

question of his regularisation neither arose nor arise in the

case. The persons found to be eligible were regularised as

per the rules of the Bank. The workman never raised any

dispute with the management .

FINDING WITH REASONING.

6. In the reference, WW I Baiju Ram the workman

himself for his own sake and MWI Petucs Toppo, Sr.

Manager (Pers.),Zonal Office, Bank of India ,Bokara for

Opp/Managment have been examined. WWI Baiju Ram,

the petitioner himself has claimed to have been appointed

as Badli Sepoy as per the letter dt. 3-1-1986 (Ext. W. 1),

thereafter ha got the Regd. Leter dt. 29-1-1986(Ext. W1/1)

he was aksed to report & work as Badli Sepoy at Kharagdiha

Branch as per the letter dt. 13-6-1986 (Ext. W1/ 2) , thus he

claimed to have continuously worked for 1654 days from

Jan. 1986 to Nov. 1991 as per the letter 16-11-1989 in three

sheets of (Ext. W 3), and he got also the appreciation letter

dt. 21-11-1991(Ext. W2/ 1) . He has also claimed to have

worked for more than 240 days each for three years at

Mirzaganj, Khargdiha and Magdiha (New Branch) and

4888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chatra, but as per the circular dt. 8-3-1996 of the Bank

(marked X for identification), he was not given, and stopped

from the work since then onwards; so his claim for

regularisationis alleged to be justified. His evasive denial

inrejoder about his any VIII pass certificate from

AdarshVidyalaya, Gardanibag, Patna having been

submitted by him as the minimum qualification for the post

of Badli Sepoy amounts to his admission as the rule of the

pleading under the civil Procedure Code. The Petitioner

has admitted that the Ext. W.2 (the alleged letter dt. 27-11-

1991 of Manager, Bank of India , Mirjaganj Branch about

the total working days 1654 for the siad period has not

seale as his Ext. W.1 letter dt. 3-1-1986 is not his appointment

letter for Badli Sepoy. His statment not to have got any

letter of engagement as Badli Sepoy at Mirjganj as his

continously working there clearly proves that he did not

get any appointment letter to work as Badli Sepoy at any of

the said cluster Branches of the Bank.

7. But the oral statement of MWI Petrus Toppo, Sr.

Manager (Pers.), Zonal office, Bank of India, Bokara, has

unrebutably affirmed that the engagement of workman Biaju

Ram as Badli Sepoy in place of the employee concered on

leave at Mir Zaganj and Khargdiha Branches temporarily;

he was never appointed by the management in accordance

with procedure of reruitment for the employees; the

workman never completed 240 day in any calender year.

Moreover, the witness (MW1) has clearly established that

on verification of the VIII the class Pass certificate issued

by the Adarsh Madya Vidyalay, Gardanibagh. Patna, as

submiited by the workman , it was found thee was no such

school as named at Patna ;if the workman was not

appointed, the question of his termination does not arise,

The witness has maintained the verasity in his cross

examination, too.

8. Mr. S. N. Sinha , the Learned Counsle has

represented the workman in this case by filing his written

argument. It is submitted for the workman that the workman

continuouslyworked for more than 240 days in a block of

twelve months from July 1988 to June, 1989, July 1989 to

June, 1990 and Jan. 1991 to Nov. 1991 according to his

documentary proof, and on that score, the workman is

entitiled to regularisation.

Having relied upon the ruling : 1976 LLJ Sc (DB) ,

State Bank of India Vs. N. Sundarsomoney , which is in

reference to Arts. 133 and 136 of the constituion of India

and Secs. 2(oo) & 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act; it is

submitted on behalf of the workman that despite his

appointment as Badli Sepoy though purely temporarily

yet his continuous service terminated without compliance

with provsion u/s 25 F of the I. D. Act, his termination in

substance is retrenchment as it was held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in aforesaid case where the appointment order

had stiputation the period of employment after which his

service was terminated. Another ruling 1967(14) FLR4,

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. workmen Ors has

been cited on behalf of the workman in reference to Ss.

10(1) (d) &10(4) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Their Lordships held

therin that he as provisions of the Act indicates while it is

open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or

any matter appearing to be connected therewith for

adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to

the points of dispute referred and maters incidental thereto.

In other words, the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the

dispute referred to it but must confine its attention to the

points specifically mentioned and anything which is

incidental thereto, looking to the pleading of the parties to

find out the exact nature of the dispute. But the parties can

not be allowed to go a stage further and contend that the

formation of the dispute mentioned in the order of reference

was non-existent, and that true dispute was something

else; under Section 10(4) of the Act, it is not competent to

the Tribunal to entertain such a question. Factually, the

role of the Tribunal is to confine to the points specifically

mentioned in the reference, and anything incidental thereto.

But the ruling is based on the provision of Sec. 2(oo) and

its exceptional clauses (a) (b) and (c) and it does not cover

the exception provision under its latest clause (bb) as

inserted by Act 49 of 1984 S. 2 w.e f. 18-8-1984 which reads

as a further exception as under : Sec. 2(oo) (bb) of the I. D.

Act. 47.

“termination of the service of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on the expiry or such contract

being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf

of continued therein; or”

So the aforesaid ruling with flux of time holds not good

with the present reference.

9. On other hand, Mr. D. K.Verma, the Ld. Counsel

for Opp./Management has argued that in view of the

admission that as per the empanelment the workman was

engaged as Badli Sepoy temporarily against the Bank

employee on leave, and he had not got any appointment

letter for it; and that the Certificate of VIII Class Pass

submitted by the workman for empanelment for temporary

engagement of a Badli Sepoy on verfiication was found to

be fabricated, as the name of alleged Adarsh Madhya

Vidyalaya, Gardanibag, Patna as noted in this Certificate

was non-existent; so the workman is not entitled to

engagement or regularisation. In the reference neither of

the parties has produced any document positive or negative

about the alleged VIII C Pass Certificate.

10. The resent reference has two appoints for

consideration:

(i) The alleged action of terminating the service

of the workman, and

(ii) His working days 1654 days for regularisation.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4889

Firstly the second involves whther the wrokman has

actually worked under the employer for 240 days, in any

other case, during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which caluclation to

be made under Sec. 25F (2) (a) (ii) of the I. D. Act. In this

regard, the letter dt. 27-11-1991 of the Branch M anager,

Mirzaganj (Ext. W. 2) is a certificate for 1654 working days

of the workman for period April, 1988 to No. ., 27-1001 at

Hirodin, Saria LDM Office Giridih Khargedhia, Chatra and

Mirzaganj of the Regional Bank of India, Firidih. But the

three sheeted letter dt. 16-11-89 of the Manager, Mirzaganj

Branch, details the wroking days of the workman for the

eriod from Jan. 3,1986 to Nov. 1987 only, but not for afrosaid

period April, 1988 to Nov. , 1991 . The last page of the said

Ext. 3 is a cartificate for his workind days for period 3-1-

1986 and July, 1988 to June, 1989 in jumbled manner, like

the certificate letter dt. 27-1-1991 of the Mirzaganj Manager

(Ext. W.2) None of the Certificate letters can be a conclusive

proof for the claimed working days of the workman. The

first two letters of the Ext. W.3 account for his working

days 193 and 166 days in the year 1986 and Nov. 1987

respectively, buy not for the period from jan. 1986 to Nov.

1991 as alleged by the workman. But again the workam

fialed to plead and prove wehn he was terminated from his

temporary service as condition precdent to its date with

the reference dt. 26.8.1999 to which clacuation to be made

for his working for 240 days during a period of twelve

calender months. In lack of the proof of the aforesaid

conditionprecdeent to the date of the reference as required

under the said provision, the said working days during the

year 1986 to 1987 stand for away for the consideration of

this regularisation on this score.

11.Secondly, at the first point whether there was an

action of the Opp./Management in terminsating the alleged

servce of the workman, it is the admitted fact that the

workman on his application dt. 15-7-1985 was effered as

per the letter dt. 3-1-1986 of Giridhi Regional Bank of India

(Ext. W.1) towork as a temporary Badli Sepoy after his

nomination.selection for Mirzaganj , a cluster Branch as

per time to time conformation, for which to keep contact

with said Barnch but is was not a letter of appointment of

Badli Sepoy. Accordingly, as per the letter dt. 29-1-1986 of

the Mirazaganj Branch (Ext. W.1/1) , he was requested to

contact with Khargdiha Branch, where Bedli Sepoy was

required from 3-2-1986 to work due work. Thereafter, the

Mirzaganj Branch as per its letter dt. 13-8-86(Ext. W.1/2)

requested the workman to report to the Khargadiha Branch

for working as Badli Sepoy from 16-8-1986 as its sub-staff

Rajendra Prasad was proceeding on leave since the date.

The very nature of the terms and conditions of the aforsaid

three letters explicityly implies every time the contract

expressedly or impliedly between both the parties for a

casual work of a Temporary Badli Sepoy against leave

vacancy of the Bank Staff going on leave for limited period

of time so the termination of the service of the workman as

a result of the non-renewal of contract of emplyment

between the emplyer and the workman concerned and its

expiry falls under the exception (bb) to the Sec. 2(oo) of the

I. D. Act. So where a workman is temporarily engaged,

termisation of his service in accordance with the condition

of engagement would not fall within the definition of

retrenchment, hence Sec. 25 F would not be attracted.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

it is responded in the terms of the reference as such, and

accordingly it is hereby —

ORDERED

the award be and tge same is passed that the action

of the Bank of India, Giridih Region in terminating (due to

non-renewal of casual contract with) Sri Baiju Ram from

service is justified, as factually it falls not under

retrenchment as defined under Sec. 2(oo) (bb) of I.D.Act.

So far as consideration for his regularisation on the ground

of his working for 1654 days is concerned, the workman in

lack of proof of his alleged termination date has failed to

prove his continuous service for 240 days during a period

of twelve calender months preceding the date with the

reference dt. 26-10-1999 to which calculation is to be made;

moneover, his afresaid working days 1654 being jumbled

up stood unproved. Hence, the wrokman is not entitled to

any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ 2013

dk-vk- 1796-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&II, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

185@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15&05&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@38@98&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2013

S.O. 1796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 185/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

the managemnt of UCO Bank and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 15-05-2013.

[No. L-12011/38/98-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

4890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec. 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 185 OF 1999

PARTIES : Employer in relation to the management of

UCO Bank, Giridih and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workamn : None

On behalf of the management : D. K. Verma, Ld.

Adv.

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd April, 2013

Sl.

Workmen

Totlal

Bank/Br.

Per day

For the

Period to

No.

days

work

period

termination

w.e.f

Sri Ram Pd.

3240

Barhiya

Rs. 8.60

1984 May, 97

5-5-97

Ram as

Class IV

Staff

Sri Ravi

382

Sasaram

Rs. 60.00

April 96, June, 97

26-6-97

Shankar Pd.

as a Peon

Sri Mukesh

1485

Tarapur

Rs. 60.00

16-9-91 April, 97

29-4-97

as a Peon

(Munghyr)

Sri Manoj

2800

Magadh

Rs. 05.41

2-5-87, 12-4-1997

12-4-97

Kumar

Medical

College

Sri Rana

301

Akbar

Rs. Nil

2-6-84

13-6-97

Pratap

355

Nagar

1990

Paswan

April, 96

(SC)

June,97

Sri Lakhi

1343

Gamaria Singh

Rs. 30.00

4-8-92

2-4-97

Das

bhum

Sri Rabi

1653

Sakchi

Rs. 24.30

4-4-1991

23-4-97

Dutta

265

Jamshed

22-4-97

Pur

(265days from

May, 96—April,97)

Sri Raju Kr.

624

Kisanganj

Rs. 30.00

10-12-86

26-6-1997

(S. C.)

25-6-97

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1)

(d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred thefollowing dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-12011/38/99-IR(B-II) dt.19-4-1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whetger S/Shri Ram prasad Ram and Seven others

(list enclosed) have worked for more than 240 days with

the management of UCO Bank? If so whether the action

of the managemnt of UCO Bank in terminating their

services rejustified? If not, to what relief the workmenare

entitiled to?”

2. The case of the United CommercialBank Emploee

Assoication, U. C. O. Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna for

workmen Ram Pd. Ram & 7 others has individually put

cases wihch are briefily dealthe with as such :

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4891

It is alleged that all the workmen were orally

engaged and had worked at meagre wages enhanced from

time to time in violation of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on

daily rated basis for severa1 years, completing 240 days

of continuous service in a year.They performed the jobs

of subordinate staff against permanent vacancies for full

days of work for 8 hours from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. till the

termination by the Bank Management orally without any

notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation, though

they were protected workmen u/s 25 F of the Act. The

Bank Management could not regu1arise or absorb them

even as per their own circular CHO/PAS/16/89 dt.19.10.89

laying down for absorption of the casual workers who

have been continously discharging any normal duties in

the Sub-ordinate Cadre tor 240 days or more immediately

preceding to the Settlement dt. 12.10.1989. On raising the

Industrial Dispute by the Association before the

conciliation Officer/A.L.C.(C) meanwhile the management

illegally retrenched the workmen, and the failure in

conciliation due to adamant attitude of the management

resulted in the reference for an adjudication, though the

management had admitted the period of their working for

more than 240 days in a block of 3 years preceding to the

aforesaid Settlement.

The management adopted the policy of unfair labour

practice in it. Thus the workmen are entitled to their

reinstatement in service with full back wages, as they had

acquired the status of permanency by keeping them in

tenterhooks for several years.

3. The Association concerned for the workmen in its

rejoinder has categorically denied and stated that the

written settlement of the management without proper

verification is untenable. Though admittedly the UCO Bank

being nationalised over is a state under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, yet it has no recruitment Rules

regarding the appointment/engagement of casual workers

in the Bank’s service just as the Bipartite Settlement

governing the condition of service of the Banking

employees does not provide for. So subsequently the Bank

Management entered into a Settlement for empanelment

and absorption of daily wagers on All India basis on 2-10-1989

and circulated it on 18-10-89. The right/entitlement are to

be determined under the provisions of the Indistrial

Dispute Act, 1947, The function of the welfare State/the

Bank is not subject to earning of profit only. Merely failing

of one year requisite under Sec.25 F would not sever the

relationship of employer and workmen. All the workmen

were engaged for hire or reward for their working which

had nothing to do with the general condition of the

recruitment rules. Every termination spells retrenchment.

Thus the reference was rightly made by the Government

of India to the Tribunal for an adjudication.

4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./

Management with categorical denials is that the UCO Bank

is a nationalised bank and State as under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India. It is under the obligation for

compliance of the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India to provide equal opportunity in Public

employment and equality before the Law so it includes

the obligation of the Bank to follow gereral norms of

appointment/engagement of person in every category of

service, i.e.,

(i) all appointment to be made against vacant

santioned posts, after advertisement for

appointment for it and requisition to the local

Employment Exchange in respect of Subordinate and

inferior service, and

(ii) the selection and appointment to ensure the

candidature of every applicant in order of merit to

reflect the position for inter-re-seniority and

empowerment of the officer by the Bank in regard to

appointment so as to create some semblonce of right

in any appointee person engaged transitory.

5. Further alleged that the Bank Management as per

its various circulars prohibited all Branch Managers from

engagement of unempanelled casual workers at Branches

and offices. So no Branch Manager of the Bank is

authorised to engage any unpanelled casual workers.

Since the Bank has been in loss of Rs. 1,429.00 Crores

on 31st March, 1996 and further loss in working till 31st

March, 1997, and one crore rupees per year for the

expenditure over payment to unwanted and illegimately

individual engaged by the authority without any authority,

hence a policy was taken to discontinue such unauthorised

engagement of person. It is further alleged that consequent

upon the decision at the meeting of Hon’ble Mr. P.

Chidambram the then Finance Minister, Govt. of India

with the members of Directors with the Representatives of

the Union/Association amongst others held on 28-3-1997

for formulation of turn around plan with the postulate for

avoidance of recurring wasteful/unproductive

expenditures, on 29-3-1997 the Zonal Manager of the Bank

strictly directed all the Branches/officers under their

jurisdiction as such :

(a) to immediately disengage daily casual workers

other than empanelled casual entered so as to

complete the entire process before 10th May 1997,

(b) to ensure availability of at least one sub staff at

each branch, when in case of his non-availability,

despatch of empanelled workers in the concerned

zone to such branch.

Zonal Head personally liable for disciplinary action

and recovery of wages unauthorised paid for the

engagement of unempnelled casual workers by them

on or after H.Q. Circular CHO/PAS/4/90 dt. 31-3-90

and

4892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(d) to acknowledge the receipt of the communication

in 48 hours of its receipt in the format concerned

and to send the same to Shri C. Mahadevan Central

Manager (Personnel).

Consequently it resulted in the agreed declaration

of All India UCO Bank Employees Federation as per joint

action plan with amongst others inter alia as circulated by

it on 9-4-1997 for—

(a) the redeployment of staff as per needs on basis

of agreed criteria within and outside city limits, and

(b) No recruitment in the current years except as

mentioned in Para 7 and specialists and general cadre

officers in the lowest grade to a limited extent.

6. Further alleged on behalf of the management the

thereafter the management again issued the circular to all

Branch Managers to prohibit the engagenment of casual

workers. The workmen were inconstantly and

unauthorisedly working in the Bank. As the appointment

was itself invalid and imoperative they were never

empanelled by the Bank and they were utilised by the

Branch Manager, they are not entitled for protection under

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Neither any approval

was abtained for their engagement or payment of wages,

nor appointment letter nor Pay slip was issued.The claim

of appointment is made against non-existence of post Their

engagement in various branches intermittently can not be

treated as a continuous service as defined in the

I.D.Act.The engagement of the daily wages is being done

for one day only and discontinuation of their engagement

can not be termed. as retrenchment the calculation of the

attendance and completion of 240 days attendance

concerning daily wages can not be treated their rendered

service continuous. Their discontinuation not termination,

by the management is non renewal of engagement.

7. The management of' the Bank in its rejoinder

categorically denied the allegation of the Union/workmen.

and stated that their unauthorised engagement by the

Branch Managar was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. They were never allowed to do

regular duties of the Bank, rather they were engaged in

the incidental job whenever occured.

They are not entitled to retrenchment compensation

or Notice Pay u/s 25 F of the I.D. Act,1947, as their

termination can not be termed as retrenchment.The

conciliation Officer, Patna has no jurisdiction over the

alleged claim of the Union for alleged workman is working

in the Singhbhum District of, Jharkhand, so its proceeding

is null and void.Thus, the action of the management is

legal and justified and the workmen are not entitled for

any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONING.

8. In the present rererance,‘‘WW1 Mukesh Kumar

WW2 Ram Prasad, WW3 Manoj Kumar, WW4 Ravi

Shankar Prasad, WW5 Ram Pratap Paswan, WW6 Ravi

Dutta and WW7 Lakshmi Das all workmen for the Union,

and MWI Anil Kumar, the Sr. Manager (Pers.) ,UCO Bank,

Zonal Office,Patna,for the management have been

examined.

The statement of WWI Mukesh Kumar is that he

worked as peon at UCO Bank, Tarapur Branch at the rate

of Rs. 15 per day weekly paid through voucher from the

16th Sept. 1991 of his appointment upto 29-4-1997, the

date of his retrenchment by the Management by stopping

him from work. He claimed to have put in his attendance

for more than 240 days.

WW2 Ram Prasad stated to have continuously

worked as a casual worker at the wage of Rs.8.35 per day

at Barhiya Branch of the Bank frorm 1984 to 1997; his

wages were paid through vouchers though he put his

attendance for more than 240 days, the Branch Manager

did not allow him to sign the' attendance register, and

stopped him from working.

WW3 Manoj Kumar claims to have served as peon

at Magadh Medical College Branch of the Bank at the

wage of Rs. 2.77 per day from the 2nd May, 1987 ot his

appointment to 12th April,1997, the date of stoppage of

his working by the management; the management did not

allow him to sign any paper or attendance register, though

he put his attendance for more than 240 days in a year.

WW4 Ravi Shankar Prasad similarlystated to have

served as a peon at Sasaram Branch of the Bank from the

date 26th Feb., 1996 of his oral appointment by the

Branch Manager until he was stopped from working on

26-6-97, though he worked for more than 240 days in a

year prior to the stoppage.

WW5 Ram Pratap Paswan also put his claim to have

served as a casual worker since his oral engagement on

2-6-84 at Akbar Nagar Branch of the UCO Bank at daily

wage Rs. 50 to be paid through debit vouchers until he

was stopped trom working from 13-6-1997, prior to

which though he had continuously worked for 240 days

in a year A Proforma of his particulars marked X for

identification.

Likewise,WW6, Ravi Dutta states to have served

as a peon since his oral appointment on 4-4-91 at Sakchi

Branch of the Bank on daily wage ot Rs.30 payable

through vouchers until he was stopped by the Branch

Manager from working on 23-4-97, though he had

continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year.

He also proved the photocopies of vouchers as Extt.W.1

to 1/3 series for the payment of his daily wage.

Lastly WW7 Lakshmi Das has claimed to have

served aa a peon from 4-8-92, the date of his oral

engagement, at the wage of Rs.30 per day payable through

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4893

vouchers at Gamaria Branch of the UCO Bank upto

2-4-1997 when he was stopped to work, though he

continuously worked for more than 240 days before the

stoppage.

But all these workmen have clearly admitted not to

have received any letter of their appointment or interview

nor their names sponsored by any Employment Exchange

for the job.

9. Whereas the statement of MW1 Anil Kumar, the

Senior Manager (pers) , UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Patna is

that the recruitment of Sub-staff of the Bank is under the

personnel department of it; for it as per its procedure, the

names of candidates are called for from the Local

Employment Exchange office their interviews are taken

and those who are selected are appointed by the

Management.These petitioners were not appointed as per

the said procedures of the bank. The management prepares

a panel for its casual workers, and it adopts the same

procedure for the empanellment of casual labourers, but

the empanellment has no names of the pertitioners.The

Management witness (MW1) has affirmed that the Branch

Manager has no power to appoint any Sub-Staff for the

work, rather he would take work from the empanelled casual

Sub-Staff in exigency as per requirement, so the claim of

the petitioners for regularisation is not justified. He also

asserted in the Court of that there is a Circular for

recruitment of Sub- staff in accordance with the aforesaid

procedure. Despite ample opportunity, the Union

Representative unappeared for the cross examination of

MWI, he was discharged ; thus it matured for argument.

10.Despite the Regd Notice to the Union concerned

on its address noted in the Reference itself for argument

for the workmen, the Union Representative did appear for

argument at the Camp Court, Patna, but Mr. D. K.Verma,

the Ld.Advocate for the Opposition/Management

appeared and argued finally in the case.

Mr. Verma, the Learned Counsel for the O.P./

Management has to submit that in face of the admission

of the petitioners that neither they have got any

appointment letter nor their names were sponsored of the

Local Employment Exchange for the post of Sub-staff,

they have failed to prove the 1st part of the Reference

about their alleged working days for 240 days in a year, so

no need to enter the second question as referred to in

regard to their alleged termination. It has been underlined

that it is the settled law that irregular casual workers can

not be regularised. The argument ot Mr. Verma, appears to

be plausable.

11. On perusal and consideration ot the materials as

adduced by both the parties, I find that the Union

Representative has utterly failed to prove any documents

of the eight workmen except those of workmen Ravi Dutta

(WW6) who has proved the four photocopies of the

vouchers as Extt. W1 series and same relate to the

payment or his daily wages for four dates, i.e., Oct. 26,1996,

April, 23 and 12,1997 and Jan. , 12, 1993, respectively. These

documents do not rather can not lead to conclusion if he

continuously worked for 240 days in any calender year as

reqired u/s 25 B(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In lack of any proof of the continuous service for

not less than one year as laid down under Sec.25 F Under

Heading conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen, no question of alleged retrenchment/termination

of these workmen arises,as all of them were quite casual

and irregular for the work of Sub-staff under the Branches

concerned of the UCO Bank.

12. In result, it is responded to the reference and

accordingly it is hereby :

ORDERED

The Award be and the same is passed that S/ Shri

Ram Prasard Ram and seven others (as per list enclosed)

have not worked for 240 days or more (in any calendar

year) with the management of UCO Bank.

Since they did not have any continuous service for

said specified days in any calendar year, the question about

the action of the O.P./Management of UCO Bank in terminating

their service as justified or unjustified does not arise. None

of the eight workmen is entitled to any relief.

Let the copies (duplicate) of the Award be sent to

the Government of India, the Ministry of Labour and

Employment for information and needful publication in

the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

LIST OF WORKMEN

LIST OF WORKERS

Sl.

Name

Branch

No.

Mr. Ram Pd. Ram

B/o : Barhiya

Distt Mungher.

Mr. Ravi Shankar Pd.

B/o : Sasaram,

Distt Rohtas.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar

B/o : Tarapur,

Distt Mungher.

Mr. Manoj Kumar

B/o : MM College,

Gaya

Rana Pratap Paswan

B/o : Akbarnagar,

Distt Bhagalpur

Mr. Lakhi Das

B/o : Gamaria,

Distt Singhbhum.

Mr. Rabi Dutta

B/o : Sakchi,

Jamshedpur.

Mr. Raju Kumar Paswan

B/o : Kishanganj.

4894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1797-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

36@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&5&2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@90@2011&vkbZ vkj (ch&II))º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2013

S.O. 1797.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Central Bank

of India and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 15-5-2013.

[No. L-12012/90/2011-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, AT DHANBAD

Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 36 of 2012

Parties

: Employer in relation to the management of

Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna

and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

None

On behalf of the management

None

State : Jharkhand/Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st Feb, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-12012/90/2011-IR (B-II), dt. 24-5-2012.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna in terminating the

services of Sh. Mahendra Kumar w.e.f. 29-1-2009 is

legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled ?’’

2. Workman Mahendra Kumar present and files a

petition with its enclsoure, submitting himself that in view

of Circular No. RO/HRD/2012-13/1588 dated 07-11-2012

wherein it has been assured that workman concerned will

be absorbed permanently as Sub-Staff in the Bank, so it

may be closed, because he does not want to contest the

Reference which was raised by himself. Further the

workman has declined to be represented by the Union

Leader Mr. B. Prasad; Sri Paras Nath Ram, the Branch

Manager, Central Bank of India, Dhanbad, for the

management is also present.

Perused the case record. I find the case has been

pending for filing written statement of the workman, but

since the workman himself is willing not to contest the suit

on the ground of his prospective absorption permanently

as Sub-Staff in the Bank as per the aforesaid Circular, as

assured to him. Hence the case is closed and accordingly it

is passed and Award of ‘‘ No industrial Dispute’’ existent,

now.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1798-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eaqcbZ iksVZ VªLV

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ 2, ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@29

vkWiQ 2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&31011@04@2006&vkbZ vkj (ch&II))º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th July, 2013

S.O. 1798.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4895

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-

2/29 of 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court .2, Mumbai, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port

Trust and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 25-7-2013.

[No. L-31011/04/2006-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No.CGIT -2/29 of 2007

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port Bhavan

Ballard Estate

Mumbai-400038.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 17th June, 2013

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment by its Order No.L-31011/4/2006 -IR (B-II) dated

05-07-2007 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 Mumbai

Port Trust in not entering in its record the dates of

appointments of Shri Vijay J. Parab, Cargo Supervisor

and Shri S. T. Mehta, Cargo Supervisor as

02/06/1969 and not giving them all consequential

benefits including the benefit to their age of retirement

as 60 years is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

these two workmen are entitled ?"

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice the second

party union filed its statement of claim at Ex-4. According

to the second party the two workmen by name

S/Shri Vijay J. Parab and S. T. Mehta were employed by

Bombay Dock Labour Board as Tally and Sorting Clerks

w.e.f. 02-06-1969. In due course they were promoted to the

post of Dock Clerk and finally to the post of Cargo

Supervisors. In 1994 Bombay Dock Labour Board

transferred the services of the workmen to the first party

and the first party became employer thereof. As per the

Mumbai Port Trust circular dated 4-7-2000, the age of

retirement of the second party workmen was 60 years. As

they were recruited before 3-8-1972 the second party

workmen are entitled to continue in their service up to

the completion of their 60 years of age. However the first

party retired Shri Vijay Parab from the services w.e.f.

1-7-2007 i. e. on completion of 58 years of his age. They did

not consider the period of his service from 2-6-1969 to 6-1-

1979 and did not give benefit as per the circular dt. 4-7-2000

as done in the case of other workmen placed in similar

circumstances. They ought to have allowed him to work

up to 1-7-2009 till the age of 60 years with all consequential

benefits. The first party gave discriminatory treatment to

Mr. Parab and subjected to losses, hardship and

inconvenience by forcibly retiring him w.e.f,

1-7-2007.

3. Mr. Mehta is still in service of MBPT. However

first party has not yet entered in its record the date of his

appointment as 02-06-1969. His service for the period

2-6-1969 to 28-2-1979 must be considered as service for

first party for all purposes. The action of the first party in

not considering the period of service of both the

employees from 2-6-1969 is illegal. Retiring Shri Vijay Parab

at the age of 58 as on 01-07-2007 is arbitrary and illegal and

unjustified. Therefore the second party prays that the first

party be directed to give all benefits to Vijay Parab till the

age of his superannuation of 60 years treating as if he is

not retired w.e.f. 1-7-2007. They also pray that action of the

management in not entering the service of Mr. Mehta and

not giving him benefits for the period of service from

2-6-1969 to 28-2-1979 be declared illegal.

4. The first party management resisted the statement

of claim of the Union vide their written statement at Ex-5.

According to the first party the contents in the statement

of claim are false, contrary and inconsistent. According to

them the contents in the statement of claim are

misconceived, malafied and not maintainable in law and

4896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

facts. They denied that second party union is deprived of

any such right of the workmen. The second party workmen

are demanding change of date of appointment and age of

retirement which is contrary to the rules of the

establishment. It would amount to injustice to similarly

placed employees and showing favour to one set of

employees in violation of principles of natural justice.

According to the first party in the year 1979 post of Dock

Clerk a higher grade than the grade in which the workmen

were employed became available in stevedoring company.

The said grade category of Docks clerk was not on the

schedule of erstwhile BDLB. Considering the better

prospects, the workman Shri Parab & Shri Mehta on their

own volition choose to resign from the services of the

erstwhile BDLB and take up the employment of Docks

Clerk in the higher pay scale with the stevedoring

company w.e.f. 07-01-1979 and 01-03-1979 respectively.

After resigning from the erstwhile BDLB the workmen

had collected all their terminal dues thereby settling all

their claims against erstwhile BDLB in respect of their

employment from 02-06-1969. Past service of erstwhile

BDLB employees is not covered either by Government

notification or by the subsequent settlements. Both the

majority unions including the second party union were

parties to the settlement. As both the workmen have

resigned from the services of BDLB and joined the

services of the first party, their period of service with

BDLB cannot be considered. On the other hand they were

recruited on 07-01-1979 and 01-03-1979 respectively.

Therefore they cannot claim any benefit in respect of their

previous service.

5. According to them the criteria was adopted by

erstwhile BDLB in its meeting dated 11-07-1986 to fix

the age of retirement in respect of Class-III and Class-IV

employees recruited on or before 1972 as 60 years and

for all future entrants the retirement age is 58 years. Birth

date of Shri Parab is 16-06-1949 and as he joined the

service on 07-01-1979, he was due for retirement at the

age of superannuation of 58 years and was accordingly

retired on 01-07-2007. Mr. Mehta joined the services of

first party on 01-03-1979. Therefore, both these workmen

are not entitled to get benefit of the retirement age of 60.

They denied that workmen were subjected to discriminatory

treatment, losses and hardship and inconvenience. Mr. Parab

was accordingly retired lawfully at the age of 58. He also

received all the retirement benefits. Therefore the first party

submitted that the workmen are not entitled to any relief as

prayed for. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected

with. cost.

6. The second party filed their rejoinder at Ex-10.

They denied the contents in the written statement and

reiterated their version in the statement of claim.

7. Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. no.

Issues

Findings

Whether Vijay J. Parab is Yes.

entitled to the benefit of

age of retirement as 60

years?

What order? As per order

below.

REASONS

Issue no. 1 :—

8. In this respect I would like to point out that

during pendency of this reference name of Shri S.T.Mehta

was deleted as per orders passed on Ex-9.

9. A short question for my determination is whether

the employee under reference is entitled to claim retirement

at 60 years of age as fixed by the circular dated 04-02-2000

issued by Central Government on the subject of Bombay

Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Amendment

Scheme 1981. As per this circular the employees recruited

on or before 03-08-1972 are entitled to continue their

service up to completion of their 60 years of age. According

to the workman he was recruited by the erstwhile BDLB

on 02-06-1969. According to them afterwards in 1979 the

workman was taken over by the first party. As against this

it is the specific case of the first party that, the workman

has resigned his services with BDLB and thereafter joined

the services afresh with the first party since January, 1979.

According to the first party the workman has also received

their GPF amount and other dues from BDLB and joined

the services of first party since January, 1979. Therefore he

is not entitled to get the benefit of the circular which

prescribe age of 60 years for the workers who were

recruited on or before 3-8-1972.

10. According to the first party his services were

not continuous service since 1969 as has been alleged. In

this respect the Ld. adv. for the first party pointed out that,

though in the affidavit, the workman has denied that he

has resigned from BDLB in the year 1979, he has admitted

in his cross at Ex-14 that, BDLB has paid him his legal dues

on 16-5-1979. He admitted that legal dues include PF,

Gratuity and ex-gratia payments. He has admitted that

those legal dues were in respect of his employment from

2-6-1969 to 6-1-1979. It indicates that the workman retired

or resigned from BDLB in the year 1979. He received all the

dues from BDLB and thereafter workman and others have

joined the services of the first party. It shows that the

workmen of BDLB resigned from BDLB in the year 1979.

They received all their dues such as GPF, Gratuity, ex-gratia

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4897

payments etc. and thereafter they joined the services of

the first party since January 1979. In the circumstances the

Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that, his services

cannot be said to have been continued since 1969 as has

been claimed. In short, according to him, as he was not

recruited as on 3-8-1972 or before that and he is not

entitled to get the benefit of retirement age of 60 years

as he joined the services of first party in the year 1979.

11. In this respect I would like to point out that

though Mr. Parab has joined the services of the first party

in 1979, he was not recruited afresh after following the

recruitment procedure prescribed therefor. On the other

hand fact is not disputed that the workers of the erstwhile

BDLB were taken over by the first party in 1979 and they

were given new and upgraded designation. In this backdrop

though the service prior to 1979 cannot be considered

for any monetary benefit from the first party however as

the workmen of erstwhile BDLB were taken over by the

first party, their earlier service is required to be taken

into account to get them the benefit of age of retirement as

the workman was already in service of BDLB since prior to

1972. He should not have been shown as a new recruit of

the year 1979. In this backdrop I hold that, the workman

Mr. Parab is entitled to get the benefit of circular dated

4-2-2000 by which workmen of the first party recruited on

or before 3-8-1972 are given benefit of retirement age upto

60 years and he ought not have been retired at the age of

58 years. In the light of this discussion I hold that, retiring

the workman at the age of 58 years was unjust

discrimination as workman was already in service since

prior to 3-8-1972. He was not recruited but was taken

over by the first party in 1979. Therefore he was required

to be treated as recruited prior to 3-8-1972. I therefore

hold that making the workman retire at the age of 58 instead

of 60 years of age was unjust and improper.

12. Though I hold that retirement of workman at

the age of 58 was unjust and improper, he cannot be

reinstated at this stage as by the time he has also crossed

the age of superannuation of 60 years. In this backdrop

the Ld. adv for the second party has claimed full

back-wages for the period of remaining 2 years. In this

respect the Ld. adv for the first party submitted that 'no

work no wages' is the well settled principle of law.

Therefore he submitted that the question of awarding any

back wages does not arise. After giving conscious thought

to the arguments of both the parties, I am of the opinion

that though the workman has not worked after the age of

58 years, he was entitled to work for two more years. He

was wrongfully retired by the first party and it was not his

fault. At the same time I would also like to consider the

fact that the workman has not worked with the first party

for the said period of two years. In the circumstances

granting full back-wages would thus put unnecessary

heavy burden on the State Exchequer for the fault of some

officers.

the

circumstances

meet

the end of justice I think it proper to grant compensation

to the workman @ 20% p.m. of his last pay (total

emoluments) for the rest of the two years. Accordingly I

decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative and proceed to

pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed as follows:

(i) The action of management in retiring workman

Shri V.J.Parab at the age of 58 is declared unjust and

improper.

(ii) The management is directed to pay the

workman Shri V. J. Parab compensation @ 20% p.m.

of his last pay (total emoluments) for the period of

two years (24 months).

(iii) No order as to cost.

Date : 17-06-2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1799-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M

¯l/ cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+&I ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

51@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&7&2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@33@2009&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013

S.O. 1799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D.

51/2009) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court .I, Chandigarh, now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Punjab and

Sindh Bank and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 18-7-2013.

[No. L-12012/33/2009-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

4898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. P. SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 51/2009

Shri T.S.Bhogal,

70/3, Mohalla Bari Sarkar,

Anandpur Sahib Ropar ( Punjab).

Workman

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank,

Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Arun Batra.

For the management: Shri I. P. Singh.

AWARD

Passed on 15th of July 2013

Central Govt. vide letter No. L-12012/33/2009-IR

(B-II) dated 13-10-2009 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

& Sind Bank in awarding the punishment of

compulsory retirement to Shri T .S. Bhogal vide order

dated 30-7-2007 is legal and justified. What relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. Workman filed the claim statement stating therein

that he was working as Clerk in the respondent bank since

20-6-1977 and he was served with the charge-sheet dated

30-9-2004 on false ground. The charge-sheet is detailed

below :—

‘‘CHARGE SHEET

Sh.Tarlochan Singh Bhogal,Cashier/Clerk(U/S)

while working at BO Bhanupali (Ropar), is hereby

charged with having allegedly committed the acts of

gross misconduct as detailed under :

1. That he allowed debit of Rs.5400 (Rs.Five thousand

four hundred only) On 16-9-2002 in the SB A/C

No.6722 (unclaimed A/C) vide cheque No.832574

indicating the A/C. No.4825 and allowed cash

payment on the signature of one Sh.Chanan

whereas:—

The SB A/C No. 4825 relates to Smt.Vijay Kumari.

The amount should have been debited to SB A/C

4825. No. such cheque leave was issued.

2. That he afforded credit of Rs. 5050 (Rupees Five

Thousand fifty only) to the A/C No.6722 (unclaimed

A/C) on 21-5-2001. Whereas :

As per credit voucher the amount pertains to SB

A/C. No. 3341 of Sh. Jagdish Ram.

He did not credit the amount to the respective A/C.

He approved cash payment of the same on 22-5-2001

with thumb impression on the withdrawl form,

and in Bank!s record Sh.Jagdish Ram having the

SB A/C No. 334l signed in Punjabi (Gurmukhi Script).

3. In gross violation of accounting norms he

approved the cash payment of Rs.7600/(Rupees

Seven Thousand Six Hundred Only) to one

Sh. Jagan Nath on 24-9-2002 by way of debiting the

SB A/C No.6722 (unclaimed account) on the strength

of withdraw form.

4. That he approved the cash payment of Rs. 20000

(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to one

Sh. Jagan Nath on 28-9-2009 by way of debiting the

SB A/C No.672 (unclaimed account) on the strength

of loose cheque No. 832577. The cheque leave has

been used from the cheque book bearing No. 83256l

to 832580 with malafide intensions.

5. That he approved the cash payment of Rs. 5300

(Rupees Five thousand three hundred only) in the

SB (Pension). A/C.No.6434 (Deceased A/C) of Smt

Banti Devi W/o Nanak Chand on 04-10-2002 with the

signature in English on loose cheque No. 832578

whereas account opening form bears thumb

impression of Smt Banti Devi. The cheque leave has

been used from the cheque book bearing No. 83256l

to 832580 with malafide intensions. The A/C of Smt

Banti Devi has been debited whereas she has already

expired, thereby misappropriating bank's funds.

6. That he approved the cash payment of Rs. 5800

(Rupees five thousand eight hundred only) on

22-9-2001 with the forged signature on the

withdrawl form in SB A/C.No. 284 of Sh.Wattan Singh

(Deceased A/C) for misappropriation the amount.

7. That he allowed fictitious credit of Rs. 45970

(Rs. Forty five thousand nine hundred seventy only)

on 9-6-2002 in the a/c No. 6722 (unclaimed account).

8. That he allowed fictitious credit of Rs.45970 (Rs.

Forty five thousand nine hundred and seventy only)

on 11-6-2002 in the SB A/C No. 392 of Sh.Surinder

Kumar. He also approved cash payments twice of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4899

Rs.20,000 (Rs.Twenty thousand only) each vide

cheque No.065259 dated 11-6-2002 and cheque

No. 574032 dated 15-7-2002 against the said credit

whereas the signature on the said cheques do not

tally with the bank’s record.

9. Further he allowed fictitious debit of Rs.45,970 in

SB A/C No.6722 (unclaimed A/C) on 10-8-2002 on

the strength of debit voucher made by him. He

prepared the credit voucher for the same amount to

be credited in the SB A/C No. 392 of Sh.Surinder

Kumar, but did not afford credit to the a/c on date.

10. That he checked the debit voucher of Rs.55,000

(Rs. Fifity five thousand only) on 8-2-2002 in the

current account no. 216 (Pension A/C) and allowed

credit in SB account No. 6722 (unclaimed account)

deceitfully.

11. That in gross violation of accounting

norms,Sh.Tarlochan Singh Ratified the debit of

Rs. 55,000 (Rs.Fifty five thousand only) on 31-8-2002

in AC No. 216 (Pension A/C). He prepared voucher

for credit of Rs.55,000 to SB ledger No. 21 without

giving any details to effect the A/C along with other

vouchers with mala fide intentions.

12. That he approved the cash payment of Rs.1700

to Smt Kamla Devi on 11-9-2001 by debiting the SB

A/C No. 6722 (unclaimed account) on the strength

of withdrawal form whereas :—

(a) The withdrawal from pertains to SB A/C No.4629.

(b) The amount should have been debited to SB

A/C 4629.

the withdrawal/cash payment.

13. That he checked the debit voucher of

Rs.2070 in the SB A/c No. 6722 (unclaimed A/c) on

26-12-2001 and checked the credit of the same to SB

a/c No. 8782 of Sh. Kuldeep Chand in total violation

of accounting norms.

14. That he approved the debit entry of Rs. 70140 on

23-8-2002 in the a/c No.184 of Himachal Traders

without accounting for the same while arriving at the

balance. The said entry remained unattended and

the party drew undue pecuniary gain to the extent of

said amount. He did not tally the balances of the C.A

intentionally. He did not make summations in the a/c

while carrying over the balance to the next page. The

present Dr. balance in the a/c is showing Rs. 42257

thus putting the bank to pecuniary loss.

Sh. Tarlochan Singh Bhogal was required to submit

his statement of defence within 7 days of receipt

of charge sheet."

3. It is further stated by the workman that he was

given penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide

order dated 30-7-2007 after conducting the inquiry. An

appeal preferred by the workman to the appellate Authority

against the glaring irregularities and infirmities, denial on

opportunity and violation of the instruction of the bank,

Bipartite Settlement and other provisions of the ID Act.

Without going through the appeal of the workman

appellate authority passed a non-speaking order confirming

the order of the disciplinary authority. It is stated by the

workman in the claim statement that inquiry conducted

against the workman is against the principles of natural

justice and provisions of settled principle of law. The

workman also claimed that many technicalities were not

followed by the management. The Manager incharge Sh.

Gurdip Singh and Vir Singh in the instant case had been

treated fairly and given a nominal penalty though they

were charged with the same set of allegation. Thus the

management discriminated against the workman by

imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. The request

of the workman to change the inquiry officer and presenting

officer did not found favour with the management. The

revengeful conduct of the Inquiry Officer is clearly

manifested in his findings and he denied the opportunity

to the workman to call the Manager who opened the

account No. 6722. The Inquiry officer did not take into

account the cross-examination of the sole tainted

management witness. The Inquiry Officer also placed

reliance on the statement of the management witness

against whom the workman had made a complaint.

Therefore the workman was victimized at the hands of the

management and he was also denied the opportunity of

personal hearing before passing the final order. It is further

stated by the workman that punishment imposed is

disproportionate to the act of the workman. He prayed

that management may be directed to restore the service of

the workman from the date of penalty along with all

consequential charges and benefit with interest. Along

with the claim statement the workman also placed on file

his affidavit.

4. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that the workman has not

approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and he is

guilty of suppression of material facts. It is further stated

by the management in the written statement that findings

of the disciplinary authority as well as the quantum of

punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority cannot

be challenged before this Court. This Court cannot sit as

Court of Appeal. It is also settled law in the case of banks

and financial institutions that high standard of financial

discipline and integrity are to be maintained to maintain

the confidence of general public. Therefore the workman is

not entitled for any benefit. It is further stated that charges

4900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against the workman were duly proved and he was given

full opportunity to defend himself during inquiry. On

merits the management denied all the allegations of the

workman and repeatedly stated in the written statement

that the workman was given full opportunity to defend

himself during inquiry and the inquiry was conducted in

fair and proper manner. The Inquiry Officer has provided

each and every possible opportunity to the workman to

defend himself. The Inquiry was conducted in fair and

proper manner following the principles of natural justice,

The disciplinary authority before passing the order of

punishment supplied the copy of the findings along with

show cause notice and personal hearing was also given by

the disciplinary authority before passing the order of

punishment. The appeal filed by the workman being merit

less was also rejected by the appellate authority after

applying its mind. It is prayed by the management that no

case is made out in favour of the workman and he is not

entitled to any relief. Along with the written statement

the management filed complete inquiry proceedings, order

of appellate authority, order of disciplinary authority and

other relevant documents. My predecessor vide order

dated 24-8-2010 held that there is no violation of

principles of natural justice while conducting the

departmental inquiry and afforded the opportunity to the

parties for adducing oral and documentary evidence if any,

and framed the following issues:—

1. Perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer

and the disciplinary authority, if any,

2. Quantum of punishment awarded to the workman,

and

3. As stated earlier, any prejudice caused to the

workman on account of failure

Of enquiry officer to provide the documents sought

by the workman.

Both the parties choose not to lead any evidence

on the issues. As no affidavit in compliance of the order

mentioned above was filed and no evidence was added on

the issue of perversity and decision-making and quantum

of punishment. Opportunity was given but not availed by

the parties hence the evidence of the parties was closed

and the case was fixed for arguments. Both the parties

filed written arguments and various case laws to

substantiate their respective case. I have heard the parties

also and gone through the written arguments of the parties.

6. Parties have not examined any witness in this

Tribunal and only affidavit of the workman T. S. Bhogal

placed on file along with the claim statement. First and

foremost question for determination is whether

departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper

manner in accordance with the principle of natural justice?

In this regard my learned predecessor after hearing the

parties passed the order dated 24-8-2010 . lt is clear from

this order that the workman has conceded and admitted

that he received the charge sheet and answered the charge

sheet and enquiry officer was appointed for conducting

the departmental enquiry on the charges leveled against

him. He also admitted of having received the order of the

disciplinary authority in this regard. He participated in

the enquiry. He was also afforded the opportunity to

represent through defence representative and also availed

the opportunity of adducing evidence in the departmental

enquiry. He also received the copy of the enquiry report,

and show cause notice with tentative punishment. He also

replied the show cause notice and he was also given the

opportunity of personal hearing which he not availed due

to his illness. The workman also preferred an appeal

against the order of the disciplinary authority. Order dated

24-8-2010 also reveals that enquiry was conducted in a

fair and proper manner following the principle of natural

justice. Thereafter the Tribunal afforded the opportunity

to lead evidence to the parties on perversity in decision

making and quantum of punishment.

7. I have heard the parties appeared and also gone

through the written arguments of the parties and also gone

through the complete enquiry proceedings and record. It

is submitted by the workman in written arguments that

another charge sheet dated 22-5-06 was served upon the

workman and in that charge sheet the workman was

dismissed from service on 28-6-2008 which clearly

shows that malafide intention of the management as the

workman is the general secretary of the employees union.

In written arguments, the workman gives explanation to

the allegations contained in the charge sheet. The workman

also relied on some case laws.

8. The management in written arguments submitted

that enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner in

accordance with the principle of natural justice and the

workman was given full opportunity to defend himself.

Number of opportunities of personal hearing was given

to the workman but the workman choose not to avail the

opportunity of personal hearing. It is submitted by the

management that the findings of the enquiry officer is

based upon the oral as well documentary evidence,

therefore, there is no perversity as the charges were proved

during enquiry against the workman on the basis of

documents. As regards quantum of punishment is

concerned, the management in the written arguments

submitted that as per the nature of allegations, the workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4901

was liable to be awarded punishment of dismissal from

service as he was involved in financial irregularities and

misappropriation of the public money, however the

disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and awarded

the punishment of compulsory retirement. As regard non-

supply of the documents by the enquiry officer is

concerned, it is submitted by the management that relevant

documents were duly supplied to the workman. The

documents have been filed in this Tribunal. The workman

failed to show that any prejudice has been caused to him

for non supply of the documents by the enquiry officer

during enquiry. It is prayed that there is no case made out

in favour of the workman and the reference may be returned

against the workman and in favour of the management.

9. So far the documents sought by the workman is

concerned, management vide its application dated

2-12-2010, in compliance of the Tribunal's orders, filed the

copies of the instructions/audit report pertaining to SB

account of the relevant period dated 11-9-1996 as account

No.6722 was opened on 1-12-1995, copy of account opening

form of SB account No. 6722 and copies of ledger sheets of

SB account No. 6722 before this Tribunal. The management

in this application also mentioned that as per the record

there is no complaint of any customer as such no document

can be produced.

10. Now the next question for determination is that

whether any perversity has been caused to the workman

or not? In this regard, as many as 14 charges were leveled

against the workman and the enquiry officer after affording

proper and fair opportunity concluded that charges

No. I to 7 and 9 to 14 were fully proved and charge No.8

was partially proved. The workman in his written

submissions submitted the explanation regarding

allegations No. 1 to 14 but the workman while facing the

departmental enquiry placed those facts before the

enquiry officer but after complete examination of evidence

recorded during the departmental proceedings, the

enquiry officer found the charges/allegations No. 1 to 7

and 9 to 14 are fully proved and charge No.8 was partially

proved. Besides this, while deciding the issue of fairness

of enquiry, this Tribunal vide order dated

24-8-2010 found that the enquiry was conducted in fair

and proper manner in accordance with the principle of

natural justice. Workman cited case laws 2010 ( 1) R.S.J

page 216 Dalbir Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Jaspal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab 2010(1) RSJ

223, State Bank of Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 2010 (l) RSJ

703. The facts and circumstances of the case laws cited on

behalf of the workman are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand.

11. The next question for determination is quantum

of punishment awarded to the workman. The management

placed reliance on 2010(8) JT S.C 436 General Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Daya Singh, 2006(3) SLR 220

Chairman & MD Bharat Pet. Corpn.Ltd. and ors. Vs.

T. K. Raju, 226(3) SLR 184 State Bank of India and another

Vs. Bela Bagchi and others, 2005(1) SLR page 599 Damoh

Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Anr. Vs. Munna Lal

Jain, 2011(1) SLR 301 Raj Pal Vs. Central Administrative

Tribunal and others, 2010(4) SLR 108 Amrit Singh Vs. Govt.

of Punjab and 2010(5) SLR128 UP State Road Transport

Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma.

12. Considering the submission of the parties, it is

pertinent to quote the relevant portion of the order dated

30-7-2007 of the disciplinary authority:

"Keeping in mind the past track record of the CSE,

and after considering the present case in

totality, I have come to the conclusion that the acts

committed by the CSE are prejudicial to the interest

of the bank. He has been found to be guilty of gross

misconduct; as such the strict action is warranted

against CSE.

I am of the considered opinion that the penalty

of compulsory retirement with superannuation

benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and

gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules

of regulations and without disqualification from

future employment in terms of clause 6(c) of the gross

misconduct under Memorandum of Settlement dated

10-4-2002, be imposed upon Shri Tarlochan Singh

Bhogal, the CSE, so as to meet the ends of justice.

I thus impose the penalty of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension

and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be

due otherwise under the rules or Regulations and

without disqualification from future employment with

immediate effect in terms of clause 6(c)of the gross

misconduct under Memorandum of Settlement dated

10-4-2002, upon Shri Tarlochan Singh Bhogal, the

CSE, which shall meet the ends of justice. Ordered

accordingly."

13. The appellate authority also while deciding the

appeal of the workman on 8-5-2008 also considered the

fact of his past record and observed as under:

4902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘I being Appellate Authority have gone through the

records such as Inquiring findings. comments of the

Disciplinary authority and the contentions raised by

the Appellant in his appeal. I have also applied my

mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and

observe that the inquiry was conducted as per rules

and principles of natural justice were duly followed.

The order dated 30-7-2007 issued by the Disciplinary

Authority is in conformity with the misconduct

committed by the Appellant. I also observe that the

past track of the Appellant is also not good as he

was also involved in fraud case of BO Ganguwal

earlier. There are no merits in the appeal. No new

facts have been brought out in the appeal. The

appellant even did not defend himself with regard to

the allegations proved against him, I, therefore, do

not find any reasons to modify the penalty imposed

upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal

is rejected.’’

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and

circumstances of the case, no case is made out in favour

of the workman. Thus it is held that the action of the

management of Punjab & Sind Bank in awarding the

punishment of compulsory retirement to Shri T. S. Bhogal

vide order dated 30-7-2007 is legal and justified. The

workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is

answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

15-7-2013

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1800-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj deku¯Mx

vkfiQlj] vkbZ- ,u- ,l- xkseUrd] xksvk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa xksvk ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k vkSj Je U;k;ky;]

xksvk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k vkbZ Vh 19@08) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@21@2005&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013

S.O. 1800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.T.

19/08) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, Goa as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the Commanding Officer, INS Gomantak, Goa

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15-7-2013.

[No. L-14012/21/2005-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, 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/19/08

Shri. Milind G. Dholey,

MGN No. 227,

Near Electricity Dept.,

Upper Jetty, Mormugao-Goa. Workman/Party I

V/s

The Commanding Officer,

INS Gomantak,

Vasco da Gama, Goa Employer/Party II

Adv. Shri P. J. Augustine for Party I/Workman

Adv. Shri N. P. Dias for Party II/Employer

AWARD

(Passed on 9th day of January, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

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

Government by order dated 28-6-06 referred the following

dispute for adjudication :—

‘‘Whether the action of the Commanding Officer, INS

Gomantak, Goa in terminating the employment of Shri

Milind G. Dholey, Bus Conductor w.e.f.

19-7-2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for?’’

The above reference was originally filed before

CGIT, No. 1, Mumbai, however the same came to be

transferred to this Tribunal by Government of India/Bharat

Sarkar, Ministry of Labour and Employment/Shram aur

Rozgar Mantralaya, New Delhi, by order dated 14-3-08, at

the request of the workman, as there was no Presiding

Officer in CGIT No. 1, Mumbai.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4903

3. In the claim statement, it is in short, the case of

Party I that he was employed by the Commanding Officer,

INS Gomantak as a Bus Conductor of the Navy School

bus w.e.f. 01-06-2001 after due test/interview and his

working hours consisted of 8 hours duty from 07:00 am

to 03.00 p.m. and was paid a monthly salary of Rs.1200

initially. It is stated that he had been performing his duties

diligently and honestly and was issued a certificate of good

conduct on 29/4/03 by the commanding officer. It is stated

that his salary was increased by his superiors to Rs.1 ,500

per month from sometimes in the middle of the year 2003.

That in the month of July 2004 he was told by his

immediate superior that he would have to work for extra

hours to which he agreed but requested for additional

travelling allowance/increase in his salary however, a

decision on his request was not communicated to him.

That without any notice/intimation his superiors refused

to employ him w.e.f. 19/7/04 and employed another

person in his place as the bus conductor. He then

approached the commanding officer/other officers on

several occasions with a request to reinstate but all the

attempts proved fruitless. Thus, he was forced to issue a

legal notice to the commanding officer, INS Gomantak

with a copy to the Flag Officer Commanding, Goa Naval

Area calling upon them to reinstate him in his earlier job

but did not receive the reply. It is stated that refusal of

employment, claim for compensation and demand to

reinstate are all falling within the ambit of an Industrial

Dispute u/s 2(k) relating to an Industrial dispute between

the employer and the employee i.e. the commanding

officer, INS Gomantak, the head of the unit which

employed him and the workmen. That since the refusal of

employment he is left jobless and is not in a position to

get an employment. It is his contention that the impugned

action of the commanding officer is arbitrary, illegal and

unjustified. Party I has therefore prayed to hold such

action as illegal and unjustified, to direct the commanding

officer to reinstate him in employment with back wages

and all consequential benefits with retrospective effect

and to direct the commanding officer to pay suitable

compensation to him from the date of termination of

employment till the actual time that he is reinstated.

4. In short it is the case of Party II that it is not an

"industry" and Party I is not a "workman" as defined under

the act; that there is no legal entity in the name "the

commanding officer, INS Gomantak" which can sue or be

sued without impleading the union of Goa and that Party I

is not employed by commanding officer, INS Gomantak

as sought to be claimed in the application. While denying

the case set up by Party I, Party II has further stated that

Party I had been selected by word of mouth sponsorship

and was not employed as alleged; that the services of

party I were hired on casual adhoc basis for limited period

by the Motor Transport Officer, INS Gomantak for and on

behalf of the parents who had contributed for the facility

of their children being picked up from and dropped back to

their respective residences before and after the navy

children school hours, though for pure administrative

control under the direction of Party II. That the amount

of Rs.1200 was collected from the parents and paid to

Party I as honorarium. That according to the existing rules

on recruitment, any person is selected for the Government

employment only after he meets the criterion/stipulated

qualifications as to age, academic qualification, medical

condition etc. against personal application based on

advertisement in newspaper/employment news and

sponsored by respective employment exchange and this

is against a post sanctioned by the President of India and

that no such post as "bus conductor" exists in any pools

sanctioned by Government of India for INS Gomantak.

It is stated that the certificate of good conduct dated

29-4-03 was issued to Party I in good faith to facilitate

him in applying elsewhere for a civil job and that it was

neither signed by Party II nor Party II is aware of any such

certificate being issued for whatsoever purpose to

Party 1. It is stated that increase in honorarium from

Rs.1200 to Rs.1500 per month was due to request from

Party I on account of increase in costs of living. Party II

has denied that somewhere in the month of July 2004

Party I was asked for extra hours work. It is stated that

since Party I was not employed by Party II, the question

of alleged refusal of employment w;e.f. 19-7-04, does

not arise. According to Party II, Party I left the services

on his own accord. Party II has also denied that the present

application falls within the ambit of an Industrial Dispute

u/s 2(k) of the Act. Thus, according to Party II, Party I is

not entitled to any of the reliefs either as claimed or

otherwise and has prayed to dismiss the application with

exemplary costs.

5. On the basis of above averments of the respective

parties issues at Exb.7 were framed on 2-7-09.

6. In the course of evidence Party I Shri Milind

Dholey examined himself as witness no. 1 and Mr. Lau

Naik was examined as witness no. 2. On the other hand

Captain Prashant Singh, Commanding Officer, INS

Gomantak was examined as witness no. 1 for party II and

the case of party 11 was then closed.

7. Both the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties advanced arguments and they also filed

written submissions.

8. I have gone through the records of the case and

have duly considered the submissions of both the learned

advocates. I am reproducing herewith the issues along-

with the finding and reasons thereof.

4904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the Party I proves In the

that the Party II had employed negative

him as a conductor on Navy

bus w.e.f. 1-6-2001 on monthly

salary of Rs.1200?

Whether the Party I proves In the

that the Party II refused employ- negative

ment to him w.e.f. 19-7-2004?

Whether the Party II proves In the

that it is not an industry with- negative

in the meaning of Section 20(j)

of the Industrial Disputes Act?

Whether the Party II proves In the

that the services of Party negative

I were hired on casual, adhoc

basis for limited period by

Motor Transport Officer,

INS Gomantak on behalf

of the parents, on payment

of honorarium collected by

the parents?

Whether the Party II proves In the

that the Party I had left the positive

employment on his own

accord?

What relief? What order? As per Award

below.

REASONS

9. Issue no. l and Issue No. 4 : Both these issues are

answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are

interconnected and answering them together would avoid

repetition of facts.

10. Party I has stated that he was employed by the

commanding officer, INS Gomantak as a bus conductor

of'the navy school bus w.e.f. 1-6-2001 after due tests/

interview and his working hours as per the directives

given at the time of employment consisted of eight hours

duty from 07.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. and he was paid a monthly

salary of Rs. 1200 initially. In his cross examination Party I

has stated that he was not given any call letter; that he was

not issued any appointment letter so also that he had not

made any letter or representation to the Party II, for showing

the different heads under which his salary was computed

to Rs.1200. He has also stated that he was not sent for

medical tests before his appointment, as a conductor. It is

also brought on record in the cross examination of Party I

that he did not ask Party II the rules of employment or the

terms and conditions of the employment.

11. Shri Lau Naik has though in his affidavit in

evidence has stated that the workman was in continuous

employment of party II from 2001 to mid 2004 and was

initially paid monthly salary of Rs.1200, in his cross

examination and more particularly when questioned

whether he knew that Party I was appointed by Party II,

this witness has made it clear that somebody brought him

and kept him as conductor on the bus. He has also stated

that Party I was getting only Rs.1200 since he was

privately appointed. He has also expressed, ignorance over

the question that the amount paid to Party I was from the

collection from all the parents of the children and paid

through someone. As regards his salary, this witness

has stated that recently he has been receiving the same

through the bank but earlier he used to get it from the

cashier in the office. He has also made it clear that Party I

was not getting the salary the way he used to get, from

Party II. . He has also expressed ignorance when asked

whether all the parents of children had kept Party I to help

their children while going to and coming back from school.

12. Captain Prashant Singh for Party II has stated in

his affidavit in evidence that Party I was not employed by

the Party II and that he was selected by word of mouth

sponsorship so also his services were hired on casual

adhoc basis for limited period by the Motor Transport

Officer, INS Gomantak for and behalf of the parents who

had contributed for the facility of their children being

picked up from and dropped back to their respective

residences before and after the Navy Children School,

though for pure administrative control under the direction

of the Commanding Officer, INS Gomantak. He has also

stated that amount of Rs.1200 collected from the parents

was paid to party I as honorarium. He has made it clear that

according to the existing Rules on Recruitment, any person

is selected for the Government Employment only after he

meets the criterion/stipulated qualifications, as to age,

academic qualification, medical condition etc. against

personal application based on advertisement in

Newspaper/Employment News and sponsored by

respective Employment Exchange. He has stated that there

is no such post as "Bus Conductor" existing in any pools

sanctioned by Government of India for INS Gomantak. He

has stated that for selection for any post in Government of

India an appropriate written examination or interview is

conducted followed by medical examination which results

ultimately in issuance of formal appointment letter.

13. In the cross examination of Capt. Prashant Singh

an attempt has been made to indicate that he is not aware

of the contents of his affidavit in evidence, however

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4905

perusal of his deposition makes it clear that he had gone

through his affidavit prior to signing it before the notary

and that he is aware of the entire contents of his affidavit.

Thus, Party I cannot be heard to say that this witness is

unaware of the contents of his affidavit. It is pertinent to

note that the statement made by this witness indicating

the manner in which the selection for any post in

Government of India, is made, is otherwise not disputed by

Party I while cross-examining this witness. Even otherwise,

Party I himself has admitted that he was not issued any

appointment letter, that he was not sent for medical test so

also that he was not aware of the rules as well as the terms

and conditions of his employment. That apart, it is further

clear from the cross examination of Shri.Lau Naik that

Party I was brought by somebody and was kept as

Conductor on bus which means that Party I was not

appointed by following the proper procedure required for

appointment of government servants. The evidence of

Shri.Lau Naik further goes to indicate that the manner of

receipt of salary by him and Party I was also different.

14. Thus, from the nature of above evidence, it

becomes clear that the so called appointment of Party I as

Bus Conductor was not made after following the proper

procedure as is required for selection for any post in

Government of India, apart from the undisputed fact that

no post as "Bus Conductor" is existing in any pools

sanctioned by Government of India for INS Gomantak.

15. In the above context, Ld. Adv. for Party

II rightly relied on the judgment in the case of Secretary,

State of Karnataka v/s. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 in which

it is held that merely because a temporary employee or a

casual worker is continued for a time beyond the term of

his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed

in regular service or made permanent on the strength of

such continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as envisaged

by the relevant rules. It is further observed in this

judgment that rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and

the Tribunal cannot direct regularization of temporary

employees dehors the rules and that the regularization can

be done only in accordance with the rules so also that the

court cannot create a post where none exists.

16. Be that as it may, Party I has produced 11

receipts/payment vouchers at Exb.13 colly and these

vouchers mention about the amount received by Party I

and one Shri Sandeep Sharma towards monthly

honorarium. The very fact that Exb.13 colly speak about

the payment of ‘‘monthly honorarium’’ and not the salary/

wages to Party I, makes it clear that the employment of

Party I was not regular. In the cross examination of Captain

Prashant Singh, Party I has sought to bring out a case that

Exb.13 colly are countersigned by Shri.S.R. Doke as

Lieutenant Motor Transport officer, for commanding

officer who would be commanding officer of INS

Gomantak. It is also sought to be brought on record in the

cross examination of Capt.Prashant Singh that Exb.13

colly are signed "for Commanding Officer" because the

money which is collected from the parents is put in the

Ships Welfare Fund which is audited every quarter and

that no remarks or objection were raised by Board of

Officers who audited this fund because the amount paid

to Party I was legitimate and duly authorized payment. It

is pertinent to note that the above case brought on record

in the cross examination of Capt. Prashant Singh has not

been pleaded in the claim statement. Being so, such case

projected by Party I in his affidavit in evidence and in the

cross examination of Capt. Prashant Singh looses its

significance. This is more so because, it is even otherwise

the case of Party II in the written statement that the

services of Party I were hired on casual adhoc basis by

Motor Transport Officer, INS Gomantak on behalf of

parents who had contributed for the facility of their

children being picked up and dropped back to their

respective residences, though for pure administrative

control under the direction of the Party II. It is therefore

clear from the above defence of Party II that there was

administrative control of Party II over the so called

arrangement made as above, for picking up and

dropping the children. Thus, Exb.13 colly signed by

Shri.S.R. Doke, Lieutenant Commander, Motor Transport

Officer for Commanding Officer cannot be read to mean

that the amount paid to Party I was legitimate and duly

authorized payment.

17. It may be mentioned here that Shri.Lau Naik has

stated in his affidavit in evidence that when Party I was

informed not to come for work, his identity card / pass was

withdrawn. It is worthwhile noting that no such statement

has been made by Party I in his claim statement or in the

affidavit in evidence and therefore such statement made

by Shri Lau Naik deserve no consideration. Nevertheless,

it is suggested to Capt. Prashant Singh that Party I was

issued a security pass, cleared periodically and hence he

was entering INS Gomantak and this witness has further

made it clear that without security pass or identity card,

Party I could not have entered INS Gomantak and that

without security pass, no identity card would be issued. It

is pertinent to note that since Party I has no where stated

in his evidence that he was issued a security pass / identity

card, the question of bringing on record such facts through

the cross examination of Capt. Prashant Singh, does not

arise. Even for that matter, the mere fact that Party I was

issued a security pass / identity card do not lead me to

draw inference that the same was issued to him as he was

the employee of Party II and this is because

Capt. Prashant Singh has clearly stated that Party I could

not have entered INS Gomantak without security pass/

4906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

identity card and as it is the case of Party II that Party I

was appointed on adhoc basis for a limited period upon

payment of monthly honorarium, there is every reason for

me to hold that, such security pass/identity card was issued

to Party I to enable him to carry out his duties, as above.

18. At any rate, as in the instant case there is

nothing on record to indicate that appointment of Party I

as "Bus Conductor" was made after following the proper

procedure as required for selection for any post in

Government of India, in the light of observations in the

judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra), the Party I herein

cannot claim that he was employed as a Bus Conductor by

Party II on Navy Bus with effect from 1-6-2001 on monthly

salary of Rs. 1200.

19. The case of Party II that the services of Party I

were hired on casual adhoc basis for limited period by the

Motor Transport Officer, INS Gomantak for and on behalf

of parents who had contributed for the facility of their

children being picked up from and dropped back to their

respective residences before and after the navy children

school hours under pure administrative control and

direction of Party II has been reiterated by Capt. Prashant

Singh in his affidavit in evidence but Party II has not

examined any of those parents who had contributed money

towards hiring of services of Party I for such purpose.

Even for that matter, as pointed out above, in his cross-

examination Shri Lau Naik, has to the question, whether he

knew that Party I was appointed by Party II has-answered

that somebody had brought him and kept him as conductor.

Further, even Capt.Prashant Singh has stated in his cross-

examination that he is not aware if there was a meeting

between the parents of the children, Motor Transport

Officer and Commanding Officer for hiring the services of

Party I on adhoc basis for limited period. He is also not

aware if the parents of the school children were not

consulted during the increase of honorarium from Rs.1200

to Rs.1500 pm. He is also not aware as to what amount was

contributed by the parents of children initially and even at

present but according to him presently it must be around

Rs. 400 per year. He is also not aware as to approximately

how many children travel in the said bus. Thus, from the

nature of above evidence it becomes clear that Party II has

failed to prove that the services of Party I were hired for

limited period on behalf of parents. As regards the

contention of Party II that payment towards such services

of party I was as honorarium collected from the parents, it

is noted that vide Exb.13 colly Party I has received said

monthly honorarium but there is nothing in it to indicate

that it was collected from the parents of the children.

20. It is also the case of Party I that he was issued a

character certificate signed by Motor Transport Section

for Commanding Officer and in this context, the defence of

Party II in their written statement is that the said certificate

dated 29-4-03, for good conduct was issued to Party I in

good faith so as to facilitate him in applying elsewhere for

a civil job and that it was neither signed by Party II nor

Party II was aware of such certificate being issued for

whatsoever purpose to Party I. Party I has produced the

above character certificate dated 29-4-03 at Exb.9. In his

cross examination Party I has stated that he did not have

any specific reason for obtaining the said certificate and

he had not told the officer that he required the same for the

purpose of employment. Capt. Prashant Singh has stated

that the said certificate was issued to Party I in good faith

to facilitate him to apply elsewhere for a civil job and it in

no manner can be construed to admit any claim of Party I.

In his cross examination Capt. Prashant Singh has stated

that as seen from the said certificate at Exb.9, it is issued on

behalf of the Commanding Officer.

21. Perusal of Exb.9 reveals that it is mentioned

therein that Party I has been performing duties as naval

school bus conductor on casual adhoc basis and that his

conduct has been superior and character very good. Thus,

from the above contents of Exb.9 it cannot be inferred that

this certificate in any way helps Party I to establish his

claim and merely because it has been signed by Shri S.R.

Doke for Commanding Officer would not lead me to draw

inference that it is issued by the Commanding Officer and

this is because as discussed supra, the same has to be

construed as issued merely for administrative purposes.

22. Thus, it is clear that Party II has failed to prove

issue no. 4. Nevertheless, since Party I has failed to prove

issue no. 1 , failure of Party II to prove issue no. 4 is of no

consequence.

23. Having come to the above findings it therefore

becomes clear that the terms of reference forwarded to this

court, do not survive since Party I is failed to prove the

employer employee relationship between him and Party II

and consequently that, that Party. II has terminated his

employment. Hence my findings.

24. Issue No. 2 and 5: Both these issues are

answered together for the sake of convenience being

interconnected.

25. In the claim statement it is the case of Party I

that somewhere in the month of July, 2004 his immediate

superior directed that he would have to work for extra hours

every day i.e. from 07:00 am to 05:00 pm to which he readily

agreed but requested for additional traveling allowance/

increase in his salary. It is also the case of party I that a

decision on his request was not communicated to him and

without any notice/intimation and without any fault on his

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4907

part, his superiors refused to employ him w.e.f.

19-7-2004 and employed another person in his place as the

Bus Conductor.

26. In reply to the above pleadings in the claim

statement, Party II has denied that any request of

whatsoever nature was ever communicated/made either to

Party II or to the immediate superior of Party I. It is stated

that Party I was not employed by Party II and hence the

question of alleged refusal of employment w.e.f.

19-7-04 does not arise. It is also the defence of Party II that

Party I left the services on his own accord.

27. Party I has reiterated the plea taken in the

claim statement, on the above subject, in his affidavit in

evidence. However, in his cross-examination has stated

that he was not given any written instructions for doing

additional work. He has also denied the suggestion that

the Commanding Officer did not instruct him for extra

hours of work.

28. Shri Lau Naik has also stated in his affidavit in

evidence that the superior officer of Party I had directed

Party I to work for extra hours every day i.e. from 07.00 am

to 05.00 pm to which he had agreed but requested for

additional traveling allowance / increase in salary, which

was not increased and he was informed not to come for

work. In his cross examination this witness has stated that

he was told by Party I that he was informed not to attend

the work.

29. Capt. Prashant Singh has stated that Party I was

never asked to work for extra hours from 07.00 am to 05.00

pm somewhere in July 2004 and that he never requested for

additional traveling allowance / increase in his salary. He

has also stated that Party I was never employed by the

Commanding Officer and therefore the question of alleged

refusal of employment w.e.f. 19-7 -04, does not arise. In his

cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestion

that Party I asked for additional allowance because he was

made to work for extra hours. According to this witness

Party I had asked for additional allowance though he was

not asked to work for extra hours and hence his request

was refused. He has further denied the' suggestion that

because Party I demanded extra allowance which was

refused by the Commanding Officer or Motor Transport

Officer, the security pass of Party I was removed and

because of removal of security pass Party I was removed

from the employment from 19-7-04.

30. From the nature of above evidence, it can be

safely gathered that it is the precise case of Party I that he

was refused employment because he asked for additional

allowance on account of extra hours of work. It is therefore

the burden on Party I to prove that he was told by his

superiors to work for extra hours i.e. from 07.00 am to 05.00

pm to which he agreed but requested for additional

traveling allowance / increase in salary on account of this

he was refused employment from 19-7-04.

31. Party I has not adduced any evidence to

indicate that he was requested to work for extra hours and

even the statement made to the above effect by

Shri. Lau Naik is not from his personal knowledge but

as told by Party I. That apart, the statement of

Capt. Prashant Singh that Party I was never asked to work

for extra hours is not specifically denied despite Capt.

Prashant Singh making the statement in his cross

examination that Party I had asked for additional allowance

but he was not asked to work for extra hours. It may be

mentioned here that the Party I has not disclosed the name

of his so called immediate superior who had told him that

he would have to work for extra hours and even for that

matter has made it clear in his cross examination that no

written instructions were given to him for doing the

additional work.

32. Having failed to prove his above stand, the

further case projected by Party I that on account of such

direction he asked for additional allowance/increase in

salary and due to this reason he was refused employment

from 19-7-04, fails. Even otherwise, while answering issue

no. 1. I have held that Party I was not employed by Party

II on the Navy bus and therefore the question of Party II

refusing employment to Party I w.e.f. 19-7-04, does not

arise and consequently it follows that Party I left the

employment on his own accord. Hence my findings.

33. Issue No. 3: No any evidence has been led by

Party II to prove that it is not an industry and hence this

issue stands answered in the negative.

34. In the result and in view of discussion supra, I

pass the following:

ORDER

1. In view of findings on issue no. 1 and issue

no. 4, the reference does not survive.

2. Party I Shri Milind Dholey is therefore not

entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Place : Panaji.

Dated : 9-1-2013

B. K. THALY, Presiding Officer

4908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1801-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 272@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@10@1999&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 272/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Bhubaneswar now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) ETR and Others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15-7-2013.

[No. L-40012/10/1999-IR (DU]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. SRIVASTAVA,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 272/2001

Date of Passing Award - 22nd February, 2013

Between:

1. The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit -III,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 007,

. . .1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Their workman Shri Prasanna Kumar Patnayak,

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak, President, Orissa

Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, Po./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa - 767001.

. . .2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

M/s. J. K. Nayak : For the 1st Party

Advocate.

Managements.

M/s. S. Mishra :

For the 2nd

Advocate.

Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

Telecom Director Microwave (Projects) and their

workman vide Letter No. L-400l2/l0/99/IR(DU) dated

19/21-07-1999 in respect of the following matter :

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services

of Shri Prasanna Kumar Patnayak is legal &

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of

Communication

through

its

Department

Telecommunications runs Microwave system of

Telecommunication in the whole country. For convenience

of administration, the entire industry is divided into

Projects and Maintenance which form an integral and

inseparable activity of the Government Department which

ultimately operates in circle. In both the works of project

or maintenance departmental workers are engaged on

daily rate of wages until they or any of them get absorbed

in the regular rolls of the Management. The Project work

and so also the Maintenance work are not confined to

specific areas or locations, but reveal a continuity of the

locations of activities geographically. The workers

engaged in the Project or in the Maintenance work get

shifted from place to place as per work requirement even

orally or through telephonic message These daily rated

workers are exploited in payment of wages, denial of over

time wages, weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1-4-1989 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Aska Station under the

Bhubaneswar, Division till 31.5.1997. On completion of

project work there he was assigned duties in the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4909

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused employment and

was forced to vacate the said station with the help of police.

He like other workers was not paid his earned wages for

which he moved various authorities including the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar with the help

of his trade union. After several approaches to the

Management as also to the Government authorities he along

with other nine workers were paid their earned wages with

effect from 1-6-1997 till the date of refusal of employment,

but they were denied employment between 24-12-1997 to

29-12-1997 further i.e. from their respective dates of refusal

of employment. The 2nd Party- workman had put in about

nine years of continuous service under the1st Party-

Management, but he was neither paid any retrenchment

compensation or other benefits under law nor any

consideration was made for his length of service and inter-

se seniority amongst workers of the same category. The

said refusal was manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified

and cannot be sustained in law. Junior workers to him in

the same category were continued in employment.

Conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar were taken up

through the Trade Union in respect of all the ten similarly

situated workmen collectively which ultimately failed and

the present reference was made by the Government on

consideration of failure report submitted by the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. The action

of the 1st Party-Management in terminating the services of

the workmen is vioiative of Sections 25-N, 25-G and 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and also

the Maintenance work of the projects being a continuous

activity of the 1st Party-Management, there could be no

justification to terminate the service of the workmen. The

1st Party-Management has also not taken into

consideration the award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/

2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with all

service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party- Management No.1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-Management

No.1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers of

the Maintenance Division. So the question of termination

of service by the Management of Microwave Maintenance

Division does not arise at all. The Microwave Project and

Maintenance are two separate and independent wings of

the Telecom Department being controlled by two different

Chief General Managers. These two units have got no

recruiting power. They get their working staff on deputation

basis from their respective territorial Telecom Circle/District.

However sometimes some works are carried out by them

through contractors or through casual workers on contract

basis. The 1st Party-Management No.1 has never taken

the 2nd Party-workman from the 1st Party-Management

No. 2 i.e. the Director Microwave Projects Division as there

is no such rule or provision in the Department to make over

or take over any working force from the Project to

Maintenance or vice versa. The Project work through-out

Orissa is done through different project divisions and after

completion of the project work the systems are handed

over to the Maintenance Division, The casual labourers

engaged in one Project Division cannot be engaged in

another Maintenance Division simultaneously and they

are'never taken by the Maintenance Division after closure

of the project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations are generally managed by the respective JTOs/

SDEs/DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies.

Since 1997 the department is carrying out the departmental

work through registered contractors whenever necessary

as per the DoT order/instruction. The said order emphasizes

that due to ban order any kind of casual engagement should

not be made and departmental works should be done

through contractors. The averments of the 2nd Party-

workman regarding engagement and payment of wages by

the Maintenance division is a blatant lie. The other

averments are also denied. It is well settled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that a Project worker has no right to continue

after closure of the Project. Similar is the situation in the

present case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/

2001 are not continuing under the Management of the

Director, Microwave Maintenance Division. They are being

deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental Security Service

in different stations as per contract with the 1st Party-

Management No.1 and are paid by the Oriental Security

Services. There is no employer and employee relationship

between the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and the 2nd Party-

workman and also with 158 workmen of the said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No.2 has stated his

his written statement that Microwave Project is an

organization, of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited) and is being managed by the Chief General

Manager, Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom

Project all the employees are pulled up from the existing

strength of regular employees of the Department of

Telecom. The Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar

has no power to recruit the employees of any cadre.

Therefore the question of appointment or reinstatement of

the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party-Management No. 2

4910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

does not arise. It has further been stated that during the

continuance of the Project work some casual workers are

used to be engaged by the site in-charge on as and when

required basis for miscellaneous work since the work of

the project is not of perennial nature. After closure of the

Project work the Maintenance Divisional used to maintain

the systems and stations by taking staff fror Telecom Circle

on deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.2 never takes

any casual worker from the Project except on few occasions

a short period. After closure of the Project no work is

available for the casual workers. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the Project.

The casual workers engaged in one Project Division cannot

be engaged in the Maintenance Division. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies.

The DoT has banned the engagement of casual labourer

since 30.3.1985 and till now it is continuing. The 2nd Party-

workman was paid his wages till 31.5.1997 when the Project

at Aska was completed and handed over to the Maintenance

Wing. Since no work was available after 31-5-1997 the 2nd

Party-workman was not provided with any work. But when

the 2nd Party-workman created disturbances at the site

with the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not

vacate the premises he was forced to vacate the premises

with the help of the police. However on the intervention

of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the

Project Division had paid wages to the workman till

29-12-1997, though he was not engaged at the site from

1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997. All the alleged workmen of the

Tr. I.D. Case No. 272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in

Project Division at Aska, Purushotampur, Baliapada and

Digapahandi. The Project work at these places has also

been completed and the stations have been handedover to

the Director, (Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the year

1996/1997. Hence the question of continuance of casual

labourers of the Project in Maintenance Division does

not arise. Neither there is any requirement of casual

labourers nor any vacancy exists in the Maintenance

Division. In view of the above the relief sought for by the

claimant is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st Party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether

the

action

the

1st

Party-Management by terminating the services

of Shri Prasanna Kumar Pattnaik is legal and

justified?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is

entitled?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only one

witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-l and relied

on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H, while the 2nd

Party-workman has examined two witnesses, namely, Shri

Prakash Chand Patel as W.W.-l and Shri Prasanna Kumar

Pattnaik, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and relied on

several documents marked as Ext.-l to 31.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed that

the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1 st Party-Management No.2 on 1-4-1989 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Aska Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31.5.1997. During

this period he worked throughout under the 1st Party-

Management No.2 and was never entrusted with any work

under the 1st Party-Management No. 1 i.e. Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd party

workman has alleged that on completion of the Project

work at Aska station he was assigned duties in the

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused employment

and steps were taken to get vacated the said station with

the help of the police. The 1st Party-Management No.1

and 2 have denied the assignment of any duties to the 2nd

Party-workman in the Maintenance Division. There is no

written order or documentary proof that the 2nd Party-

workman was assigned the duties in the Maintenance work

at the Aska Station after 31-5-1997, but it is an admitted

fact that the 2nd Party-workman remained located at Aska

station till 29-12-1997 and on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

the 2nd Party-workman and nine other similarly situated

workmen were paid wages from 1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997

or till the date they remained stationed at their respective

stations by the 1st Party-Management No.2. Ext.-5 filed

by the 2nd Party-workman shows that the matter of 2nd

Party-workman and similarly situated nine other workmen

for taking them into the Maintenance Division was pursued

at Head Office level by Deputy General Manager

(Administration) Telecom, but these workmen were not

taken by the Maintenance Division and their requests were

turned down as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were

finally refused employment. Therefore it cannot be accepted

that the 2nd Party-workman and similarly situated nine other

workmen were engaged or deputed in the Maintenance

work and therefore they cannot claim any right for

employment in Maintenance Division But apart from that

the 2nd Party-workman and the other similarly situated

nine workmen, who are also said to have rendered

continuous service of 240 days or more have got a vested

right to continue in the job unless retrenched after

following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4911

Disputes Act, which says that "no workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service for not

less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched

by that employer until - the workman has given one

month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of notice and the workman has been paid, at

the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months.” Admittedly the 1st Party-Management has

not complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of

the 2nd party-Workman who has rendered nearly nine

years of continuous service is illegal being in breach of

aforesaid provision of law. Ext.- 30/1 shows that the 2nd

Party-workman whose name is entered at Sl. No. 15 of

the list had rendered 290 days work during January, 1996

to December, 1997 the month-wise break up of which

has not been given. The 2nd party- workman has

specifically stated in his re-examination on 1-8-2006 that

Ext.-30/1 indicates that he had worked for 290 days in

the preceding 12 months of his termination. There is no

specific denial from the side of the Management either

in the pleadings or in any documents filed by it. Therefore

it cannot be said that the 1st Party-Management has acted

illegally in terminating the services of the 2nd Party-

workman. In view of the above the action of the 1st Party-

Management in terminating the services of Shri Prasanna

Kumar Pattnaik, the 2nd Party-workman cannot be held

to be legal and justified. Issue No.1 is decided against the

1st Party-Management.

ISSUE No. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Aska has been completed long back where

he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of

reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation can

be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment

by the 1st Party Management without complying the

provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to him under

Section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered

that the 1st Party-Management No. 2 shall pay rupees one

lakh as compensation to the 2nd Party-workman in lieu of

reinstatement in service and also wages of one month for

notice period and retrenchment compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of

continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months within a period of three months from the date of

publication of award. He shall also be offered re-employment

by the 1st Party-Management No.2 in case any casual

worker is employed by it in future in accordance with the

provisions of the Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1802-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnZl ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 273@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@08@1999&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 273/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as now shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) ETR and Others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15-7-2013.

[No. L-40012/08/1999-IR (DU]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. SRIVASTAVA,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 273/2001

Date of Passing Award - 14th March, 2013

Between:

1. The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit -III,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 007,

. . .1st Party-Managements

4912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

Their workman Shri Laxmi Kanta Pradhan,

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak, President, Orissa

Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, Po./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa -767001.

. . .2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

M/s. J. K. Nayak : For the 1st Party

Advocate.

Managements.

M/s. S. Mishra :

For the 2nd

Advocate.

Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects), Telecom and their

workman vide Letter No. L 400l2/8/99/IR(DU) dated

19/21-07-1999 in respect of the following matter:

Whether the action of the management of

Project Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt.

of Telecommunications by terminating the

services of Shri Laxmi Kanta Pradhan is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of

Communication

through

its

Department

Telecommunications runs Microwave system of

telecommunication in the whole country. For convenience

of administration, the entire industry is divided into

Projects and Maintenance which form an integral and

inseparable activity of the Government Department which

ultimately operates in circle. In both the works of project

or maintenance departmental workers are engaged on

daily rate of wage until they or any of them get absorbed

in the regular rolls of the Management. The Project work

and so also the Maintenance work are not confined to

specific areas or locations, but reveal a continuity the

locations of activities geographically. The workers

engaged in the Project or in the Maintenance work get

shifted from place to place as per work requirement even

orally or through telephonic message These daily rated

workers are exploited in payment of wages, denial of over

time wages, weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1-8-1990 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Purushotompur Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997. On

completion of project work there he was assigned duties

in the Maintenance work at the same station where he

continued till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and was forced to vacate the said station with

the help of police. He like other workers was not paid his

earned wages for which he moved various authorities

including the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade union. After several

approaches to the Management as also to the Government

authorities he along with other nine workers were paid

their earned wages with effect from 1-6-1997 till the date

of refusal of employment, but they were denied further

employment between 24-12-1997 to 29-12-1997 i.e.

from their respective dates of refusal of employment. The

2nd Party-workman had put in about nine years of

continuous service under the 1st Party-Management, but

he was neither paid any retrenchment compensation or

other benefits under law nor any consideration was made

for his length of service and inter-se seniority amongst

workers of the same category. The said refusal was

manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and cannot be

sustained in law. Junior workers to him in the same

category were continued in employment. Conciliation

proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar were taken up through the Trade

Union in respect of all the ten similarly situated workmen

collectively which ultimately failed and the present

reference was made by the Government on consideration

of failure report submitted by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. The action of the

1st Party-Management in terminating the services of the

workmen is violative of Section 25-N, 25-G and 25-H of

the Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and also

the Maintenance work of the projects being a continuous

activity of the 1st Party-Management, there could be no

justification to terminate the service of the workmen. The

1st Party-Management has also not taken into

consideration the award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/

2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with

all service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not

maintainable against the 1st Party- Management No.1 as

the 2nd Party-workman is not the employee of the 1st

Party-Management No.1. He was never engaged in the

Microwave Maintenance Division by the Director. and

other officers of the Maintenance Division. So the

question of termination of service by the Management of

Microwave Maintenance Division does not arise at all.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4913

The Microwave Project and Maintenance are two separate

and independent wings of the Telecom Department being

controlled by two different Chief General Managers.

These two units have got no recruiting power. They get

their working staff on deputation basis from their

respective territorial Telecom Circle/District. However

sometimes some works are carried out by them through

contractors or through casual workers on contract basis.

The 1st Party-Management No.1 has never taken the 2nd

Party-workman from the 1st Party-Management No.2 i.e.

the Director Microwave Projects Division as there is no

such rule or provision in the Department to make over or

take over any working force from the Project to

Maintenance or vice versa. The Project work through-out

Orissa is done through different project divisions and after

completion of the project work the systems are handed

over to the Maintenance Division. The casual labourers

engaged in one Project Division cannot be engaged in

another Maintenance Division simultaneously and they

are never taken by the Maintenance Division after closure

of the project work. Infact the Maintenance work of

different stations are generally managed by the respective

JTOs/SDEs/DEs by existing regular. staffs. Further no

casual labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D

vacancies. Since 1997, the department is carrying out the

departmental work through registered contractors

whenever necessary as per the DoT order/instruction. The

said order emphasizes that due to ban order any kind of

casual engagement should not be made and departmental

works should be done through contractors. The averments

of the 2nd Party-workman regarding engagement and

payment of wages by the Maintenance division is a blatant

lie. The other averments are also denied. It is well settled

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Project worker has

no right to continue after closure of the Project. Similar

is the situation in the present case. The 158 workmen in

Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/2001 are not continuing under the

Management of the Director, Microwave Maintenance

Division. They are being deployed by the contractor,

M/s. Oriental Security Service in different stations as per

contract with the 1 st Party-Management No. 1 and are

paid by the Oriental Security Services. There is no

employer and employee relationship between the 1st

Party-Management No.1 and the 2nd Party-workman and

also with 158 workmen of the said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No.2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an

organization of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited) and. is being managed by the Chief

General Manager, Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the

Telecom Project all the employees are pulled up from

the existing strength of regular employees of the

Department of Telecom. The Director, Microwave

Project, Bhubaneswar has no power to recruit the

employees of any cadre. Therefore the question of

appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd Party-workman

by the 1 st Party-Management No.2 does not arise. It has

further been stated that during the continuance of the

Project work some casual workers are used to be engaged

by the site in-charge on as and when required basis for

miscellaneous work since the work of the project is not of

perennial nature. After closure of the Project work the

Maintenance Division used to maintain the systems and

stations by taking staff from Telecom Circle on deputation.

The 1st Party-Management No. 2 never takes any casual

worker from the Project except on few occasions for a short

period. After closure of the Project no work is available for

the casual workers. Therefore their engagement used to go

along with the closure of the Project. The casual workers

engaged in one Project Division cannot be engaged in the

Maintenance Division. Further no casual labour is engaged

against any R.M./Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned

the engagement of casual labourer since 30-3-1985 and till

now it is continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his

wages till 31-5-1997 when the Project at Purushotampur

was completed and handed over to the Maintenance Wing.

Since no work was available after 31-5-1997 the 2nd Party-

workman was not provided with any work. But when the

2nd Party-workman created disturbances at the site with

the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not vacate

the premises he was forced to vacate the premises with the

help of the police. However on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project

Division had paid wages to the workman till

29-12-1997, though he was not engaged at the site from

1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997. All the alleged workmen of the Tr.

I.D. Case No. 272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in Project

Division at Aska, Purushotampur, Baliapada and

Digapahandi. The Project work at these places has also

been completed and the stations have been handed-over

to the Director, (Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the

year 1996/1997. Hence the question of continuance of casual

labourers of the Project in Maintenance Division does not

arise. Neither there is any requirement of casual labourers

nor any vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In

view of the above the relief sought for by the claimant is

devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the 1st Party-

Management by terminating the services of Shri

Laxmi Kanta Pradhan is legal and justified?

4914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled?

8. The 1 st Party-Management has examined only

one witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-1 and

relied on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H, while

the 2nd Party-workman has examined two witnesses,

namely, Shri Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-1 and Shri

Laxmikanta Pradhan, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and

relied on several documents marked as Ext.-1 to 29.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed that

the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 on 1-8-1990 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Purushotampur

Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997.

During this period he worked throughout under the 1st

Party-Management No.2 and was never entrusted with any

work under the 1st Party-Management No.1 i.e. Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd party-

workman has alleged that on completion of the Project

work at Purushotampur station he was assigned duties in

the Maintenance work at the same station where he

continued till 29.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and steps were taken to get vacated the said

station with the help of the police. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 and 2 have denied the assignment of

any duties to the 2nd Party-workman in the Maintenance

Division. There is no written order or documentary proof

that the 2nd Party-workman was assigned the duties in

the Maintenance work at the Purushotampur Station after

31-5-1997, but it is an admitted fact that the 2nd Party-

workman remained located at Purushotampur station till

29-12-1997 and on the intervention of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar the 2nd

Party-workman and nine other similarly situated workmen

were paid wages from 1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997 or till

the date they remained stationed at their respective

stations by the 1st Party-Management No. 2. Ext.-5 filed

by the 2nd Party-workman shows that the matter of 2nd

Party-workman and similarly situated nine other workmen

for taking them into the Maintenance Division was pursued

at Head Office level by Deputy General Manager

(Administration) Telecom, but these workmen were not

taken by the Maintenance Division and their requests were

turned down as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were

finally refused employment. Therefore it cannot be accepted

that the 2nd Party-workman and similarly situated nine other

workmen were engaged or deputed in the Maintenance

work and therefore they cannot claim any right for

employment in Maintenance Division.

10. In order to get the benefit of the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act the workman

has to prove that he has rendered continuous service for

not less than one year meaning thereby 240 days

continuous service in one year under an employer.

11. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act says

that “no workman employed in any industry which has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until :—

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice

in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has

expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu

of such notice, wages for the period of the

notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any

part thereof in excess of six months;

12. In this case from the side of the 2nd party-

workman evidence of one Shri Prakash Chandra Patel, who

is said to be the General Secretary of the Orissa Telecom,

Microwave Mazdoor Sangh and of the workman himself

has been adduced. After filing his evidence through

affidavit the workman has failed to complete his

re-examination and face cross examination. Therefore the

affidavit evidence filed by the 2nd Party-workman cannot

be read in evidence and thus the sole evidence of Shri

Prakash Chandra Patel, W.W.-l remains available from the

side of the 2nd Party-workman. This witness has stated in

his evidence that the 2nd Party-workman had worked in

the project for seven year or more till May, 1997 and

then in the Maintenance Division up-to December, 1997.

He has further stated that the disputant workman was

working at the Project at Aska station in 1997 and when

the project was completed the same was handed over to

the Maintenance wing in June, 1997. But the workman

and others working there were asked to stay on there to

work in Maintenance till the last week of December, 1997.

He has denied in his cross examination that the disputant

has not worked for 240 days continuously either in the

Project or in the Maintenance. He has also relied on the

letter dated 2-3-2002 of the Divisional Engineer, Telecom

Microwave Project, Berhampur along with its enclosures

which is mentioned at Sl. No. 27 of the list of documents

filed by the 2nd party-workman and proved it in. his

evidence. But this letter has not been marked as Ext.-27.

Instead a letter dated 6-3-2000 written by the Divisional

Engineer (Administration), Telecom Projects, East Zone,

Calcutta to CGM, Telecom, Orissa Telecom Circle,

Bhubaneswar has wrongly been marked as Ext.-27. The

above referred letter dated 2-3-2002 placed on record

after Ext.-21 depicts the name of the 2nd party-workman

at Sl. No. 12 against which his date of engagement has

been shown as 12/1991 and the date of discontinuation

has been shown as 28-12-1997. Further it has been shown

against his name that he had worked 290 days during

January, 1997 to December, 1997. In the remark column

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4915

it has been shown that he had been working in each year

from the date of engagement up to December, 1996 as

and when required basis. In another list enclosed with this

letter marked as Ext.-22 it has been shown that the 2nd

party-workman was engaged from 1-8-1990 and worked

till 31-5-1997 in the project and from 1-6-1997 to

29-12-1997 under S.D.E. Microwave through ACG, but

the period of working from 1.8.1990 to 31-5-1997 has

to be verified. But the first list enclosed with this letter

clearly shows that the 2nd party-workman had worked for

290 days from January, 1997 to December, 1997. This

has not been contradicted in any evidence adduced from

the side of the 1st Party-Management. Therefore it is to

be held that the 2nd party-workman had worked with the

1st Party-Management No. 2 continuously for more than

240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding

the date of his disengagement and so he is entitled to the

protection of safeguard provided under section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above the

disengagement of the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 amounts to retrenchment and the 1st

Party-Management No. 2 has acted illegally in

terminating the services of the 2nd Party-workman. This

action of the 1st Party-Management No. 2 is accordingly

held illegal and unjustified. Issue no. 1 is decided against

the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE No. 2

13. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed reinstatement

in service with all service benefits, but since a period of

more than 15 years has passed and the work at the Project

at Purushotampur has been completed long back where he

was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of reinstatement.

However an appropriate compensation can be awarded to

him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment by the 1st

Party-Management without complying the provisions of

Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act,

besides the benefits accrued to him under section 25-F of

the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered that the 1st Party-

Management No.2 shall pay rupees one lakh as

compensation to the 2nd Party-workman in lieu of

reinstatement in service and also wages of one month for

notice period and retrenchment compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of

continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months within a period of three months from the date of

publication of award. He shall also be offered re- employment

by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 in case any casual

worker is employed by it in future in accordance with the

provisions of the Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

14. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1803-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] eqEcbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19&7&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@98@2003&vkbZvkj(,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

19-7-2013.

[No. L-30011/98/2003-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

Present:

K.B.KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -2/24 of 2004

Employers in Relation to The Management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

The Director

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Refinery Division

Mahul

Chembur

Mumbai-400074.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Mumbai Shramik Sangh

‘Sangharsh’

Quarry Road

Bhandup (W)

Mumbai 400078.

4916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer

Mr. R. S. Pai, Advocate.

For the Workmen

Mr. R.D. Bhat, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 20th May, 2013

AWARD PART-I

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-30011/98/2003 -IR (M)

dated 15/04/2004 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:

“(a) Whether the contract between BPCL and

respondent No. 2 contractor is~ sham' and

bogus and is a camouflage to deprive the

workers concerned in the petition of benefits

available to permanent workmen of BPCL;

(b) Whether the workers concerned in the

petition should be declared permanent

workers of BPCL;

to be paid to the workers concerned in the

petition.”

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice the second

party union filed its statement of claim at Ex-5. According

to them the first party is a Public Sector Corporation and

Government of India undertaking. The 23 employees

mentioned in the Annexure-I were employed for cleaning,

sweeping, dusting and washing of the multistoried

buildings. The Trombay Club and Sports Club in their staff

colony at Mahul, Chembur Mumbai, Vashi and Navi

Mumbai. These employees were employed through

various so called contractors from time to time. The

present contractor is M/s. Good House Keeping. The

contracts are sham and bogus merely to deprive these 23

workers from getting the benefit of permanency. The Estate

of the Housing Colony of the Corporation consists of six

bungalows occupied by Directors and 38 multistoried

buildings consisting of 500 flats for its high ranking officers.

The Sports Club and four storied residential building

comprising 40 flats is at Sector-7 in Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

The housing colony including Sports Club, Trombay Club

are owned by the first party and meant for their serving

employees only. The Housing Colony is situated close to

the refineries and specially designed in such a way so that

officers may have quick and easy access particularly in

cases of emergency. The housing colony is essential and

necessary for the smooth functioning of the refinery of the

first party.

3. The Refinery of the first party is environmentally

hazardous. The permission to operate the plant was only

granted by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board on

condition that, the open available area is covered with trees.

The emp'oyees cannot operate or exists without the housing

colony with its open space, its gardens and trees. Hence

maintenance of staff/housing colony by first party is

statutory requirement and is necessary and integral to

running of the refinery. The total area of housing colony is

40 acres of land. In order to maintain clean and hygienic

surrounding in the housing colony, first party employs the

above referred workmen through so called contractors for

the so called job of housekeeping, sweeping and cleaning.

Their working hours are 8.00 am to 5.00 pm with lunch

break in between. The work is carried out 7 days a week

and throughout the year without any break or destruction

and the same is absolutely necessary. These workmen are

working and doing' the work of sweeping, cleaning, dusting

the colony roads therein Children nursery and company

dispensary, guest house etc. from a minimum of 13 years to

maximum 24 years. During the entire period their work is

supervised and controlled by the officials of first party

company.

4. Since 1990 these workmen became member of the

union. They were paid minimum wages to the extent of

Rs. 20 and maximum of Rs. 22 per day. Whereas the minimum

wage of an unskilled regular employee of first party is more

than Rs. 2,200 per month. The workmen are not given any

benefit as per the law. The contracts are bogus and sham

merely to deprive them from getting benefits of permanency.

The union had filed complaint of unfair labour practice.

There was also threat of termination of these workmen.

Therefore union has filed Writ Petition no.436 of 1991 before

Hon’ble High Court. The contractors are dummies. They

were not maintaining any record of payment of wages. The

Corporation has deprived the workmen from getting fair

living wages and they are being paid a very meager amount

by way of wages. This exploitation is being perpetuated

for last several years. Therefore the union has filed Writ

Petition no. 74 of 2004. The Hon’ble High Court has given

protection to them. The Union has raised the said dispute.

As conciliation failed as per the intimation of ALC (C), the

Central Government, Ministry of Labour has sent the

reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore prays that

the contract between the company and the contractor be

declared sham and bogus and mere camouflage to deprive

the 23 workmen. They also prays that these workmen be

directed/declared as employees of first party and they be

given the status, benefits and privileges of permanent

employees from the day they have completed 240 days in

service and also prays for arrears with 18% interest thereon.

They also pray for consequential relief at par with the

regular employees with 18% compound interest thereon.

5. The first party management resisted the statement

of claim of Union vide their written statement at Ex-11.

According to them the employees referred in the statement

of claim are employed by contractor for housekeeping

activities only at the Housing Colony of the Corporation.

As Housing Colony is not covered by the definition of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4917

'industry' the dispute is not an industrial dispute. The

union has moved to Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition

claiming for abolition of contract labour. However as

Housing Colony is not 'industry' the same plea of the union

is not tenable. Therefore this Tribunal has also no

jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The workmen are

not employees of the Corporation. On that ground also it

would not be an industrial dispute. The union represents

only these 23 persons and no other employee of the

Corporation is member of the said union. The union had

approached the Central Advisory Labour Board under CLRA

Act for abolition of contract labour in the staff colony. The

said application is still pending for disposal. For all these

reasons reference is not maintainable. As union has moved

for abolition of contract labour, now they cannot claim that

the contract between Corporation and contractor is sham

and bogus. The union cannot be allowed to approbate and

reprobate at the same time. There is inordinate delay in

raising the said objection. The plea of sham and bogus

contract is barred by Principles of Analogous to Res-

judicata being already decided in the Writ Petition. The

dispute is against the order of the Apex Court passed in

SLP, therefore, not maintainable. According to them the

persons for whom union has filed the reference are not

‘workmen’. The Housing Colony is not an ‘industry’. They

denied all the allegations made in the statement of claim.

They denied that these 23 workmen are working as their

employees. They denied all the allegations and prayed that,

the reference be dismissed with cost.

6. On application of the Ld. adv. for the first party,

following preliminary issues are framed. I record my

findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. no.

Issues

Findings

Whether the employer/housing

colony herein is an ‘industry’ as

defined under Section 2 (j) of I.D.

Act?

Yes.

Whether the reference is tenable in

view of order passed by Supreme

Court in. Civil Appeal no. 6213/1997? Yes.

REASONS

Issue no. 1 :

7. The fact in this case is not disputed that, these 23

workers are doing the house keeping work in the Housing

Colony. They are cleaning, sweeping, dusting and washing

the premises of the Housing Colony. Therefore it was

pleaded on behalf of first party that the Housing Colony

is not an 'industry' as contemplated under Section 2 (j) of

the I.D.Act. In this respect the fact is also not dtsputed

that the Housing Colony is not private or co-operative

housing society. On the other hand it is a colony of first

party Corporation, constructed and maintained by first

party Corporation and the houses therein are allotted to

the employees of the Corporation. No house is allotted

to any private person or the person who is not in service of

the Corporation. In short, maintenance of Housing Colony

is part and parcel of the functioning of the ,first party.

Therefore it cannot be said that Housing Colony is separate

and it also cannot be said that it is not ‘industry’ On the

other hand I would like to point out that it is part and

parcel of functioning of the first party Corporation. The

colony is made for the employees of the Corporation.

Therefore it cannot be said that it has no concern with the

functioning of the Corporation. Keeping colony clean and

inhabitable is one of the functions of the Corporation which

they are doing with the help of these workmen. As

maintenance of Housing Colony of the employees is part

and parcel of the function of the Corporation, I hold that

the housing colony is also an ‘industry’as defined under

Section 2 (j) of the I.D.Act. Accordingly I decide this issue

no. 1 in the affirmative.

Issue no. 2:-

8. The Ld. adv for the first party in this respect

submitted that in view of the order passed by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 5213/1997, this reference is

not maintainable. In this respect I would like to point out

that the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of

Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However in this respect I

would like to point out that the Hon'ble Court has not

made any observation in respect of tenability of this

reference. On the other hand at page no.3 the Hon’ble

Court observed that;

“We do not propose to go into various legal

questions involved in this matter as we make it

clear that the respondents would be at liberty to

urge those points before the appropriate authority.

We therefore leave open those questions as we

do not find it necessary for the disposal of these

appeals.”

9. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

the respondent union has raised industrial dispute and as

per the report of ALC (C), the reference is sent by the

Government to this Tribunal. In this back drop I come to

the conclusion that the said order does not create any

obstacle or bar in conducting this reference. Accordingly

I decide this issue no. in the negative and proceed to pass

the following order:

ORDER

(i) The employer/housing colony is held ‘industry’

as defined under Section 2 (j) of the I. D. Act.

(ii) Reference is tenable.

(iii) Parties are directed to remain present for further

proceedings on 16-08-2013.

Date: 20-05-2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

4918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1804-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,y ih

th ckaVfyx IykaV] vksfMlk ds çca/ra=k ds laca¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 19&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@78@2012&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref

No. 53/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. LPG

Bottling Plant, Orissa and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 19-7-2013.

[No. L- 30012/78/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 9/2013

Date of Passing Order - 28th June, 2013

BETWEEN

The Plant Manager, LPG Bottling Plant, P.O./Distt.

Jharsuguda, Orissa.

. . . 1 st Party-Management.

AND

Their workman Shri Lalbihari Bag,

Railway Colony, Jharsuguda,

P.O./Distt. Jharsuguda,

Orissa.

. . .2nd Party- Workman.

APPEARANCES :

None

. . .

For the 1st Party—

Management.

None

. . .

For the 2nd Party—

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. The 2nd Party-workman is absent.

Two notices, one by ordinary post and the other by regd.

post have been sent to the 2nd Party. workman, but both

notices have been received back with. note of insufficient

address. No other address is available with this Tribunal.

Hence there is no alternative, except to return the reference

to the Government un-answered.

2. Accordingly the reference is returned to the

Government un-answered for taking necessary action at

its end.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1805-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ lqfdaMk

ØksekbZV ekbUl vkWiQ fVLdks ,oa ujs'k dqekj ,aM dEiuh izk-

fyfeVsM ttiqj] vksfMlk ds çca/ra=k ds laca¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 19&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29012@18@2010&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref.

No. 53/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Sukinda Chromite Mines of

TISCO & M/s. Naresh Kumar & Co. (P) Ltd. Jajpur, Orissa

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 19-7-2013.

[No. L-29012/18/2010-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4919

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 53/2011

Date of Passing Order - 19th of June, 2013

BETWEEN

M/s. Naresh Kumar & Co. (P) Ltd.,

C/o. Sukinda Chromite Mines of TISCO,

At./P.O.. Kalarangiatta, Dist. Jajpur, Orissa.

The Dy. General Manager,

Sukinda Chromite Mines of TISCO,

At./Po. Kalarangiatta, Dist. Jajpur, Orissa

. . .1 st Party-Management.

AND

Their

workman

Shri

Jaladhar

Dehury,

C/o. Shri Nrusingh Dehury, At. Sendhaswar,

Po. Muruabil, Via. Badasual, Dhenkanal- 39.

. . . 2nd Party- Workman.

APPEARANCES:

None

For the 1st Party-Management

No. 1& 2.

None

For the 2nd Party-Workman.

ORDER

The 2nd Party-workman Shri Jaladhar Dehury in

compliance to the order of reference has filed his statement

of claim on 30.11.2011, but no copy was sent or served on

the 1st Party-Management No.1 and 2 despite repeated

orders of this Tribunal. Looking to his indifference and

neglect of the 2nd Party-workman notices were suo moto

issued by this Tribunal to the 1st Party- Management No.1

and 2 by ordinary as well as registered post on 30.3.2012,

29.8.2012, 3.1.2013 and 22.1.2013, but the 1 st Party-

Management No.1 and 2 neither put in their appearance

nor filed any written statement. It has also to be noted

from record that the 2nd Party-workman did not appear in

the case on any of the dates fixed for hearing except on

one date. When the statement of claim was filed in the

office on 30.11.2011 he was found absent in the court. As

such he has been quite negligent in prosecuting his case

and took no pains to comply the orders of the Tribunal.

Hence it will be of no ‘use to keep the case pending

indefinitely for no purpose.

2. Besides, from perusal of the statement of claim no

case is made out prima-facie to entitle him for grant of any

relief as he has not mentioned as to whether he was a

permanent employee or casual/temporary or daily wage

employee. It has also not been disclosed as to when his

services were terminated by the Management and from

which post. He has also raised claim for arrears of revised

pay scale which is beyond the scope of reference.

Therefore, his claim is liable to be dismissed for want of

prosecution and necessary details. Consequently the claim

of the 2nd Party-workman is dismissed being vague and

incomplete and he is found not entitled to any

3. Reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1806-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ us'kuy

,Y;wfefu;e dEiuh fyfeVsM xzghr fo|qr la;a=k vuxqy] vksfMlk

ds çca/ra=k ds laca¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@2012)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 19&7&2013 dks çkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&43011@06@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref.

No. 55/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. NALCO, Angul, Odisha, and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 19-7-2013.

[No. L-43011/06/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

DUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 55/2012

Date of Passing Order - 28th June, 2013

(Lok Adalat)

BETWEEN

The M/s. Fab Erectors, Contractor,

NALCO, At. Similipada,

Po./Dt. Angul- 759 122, Orissa.

M/s. Chaitan Majhi, Contractor,

4920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

C/o. CPP, NALCO,

At./Po. Banarpal, Dist. Angul- 759 128,

Orissa.

The General Manager, CPP, NALCO,

At./Po. Banarpal, Dist. Angul- 759 128

(Orissa). . . . 1st Party-Managements.

AND

Shri Madhusudhan Nath & 64 Others,

S/o. C. Nath, At./Po. Balaramprasad (Basala

Sahi),

Via. Banarpal, PS. NALCO Nagar,

Dt. Angul, (Orissa).

. . . 2nd Party- Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

None

. . .

For the 1st Party—

Management No. 1 & 3.

None

. . .

For the 2nd Party—

Workmen

ORDER

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat. Authorized

representatives for the 1st Party-Management No.1, the

proprietor of the 1st Party-Management No. 2 and the

authorized representative for the 1st Party-Management

No. 3 and Shri Madhusudhan Nath on behalf of the 2nd

Party-workmen are present.

2. Parties have filed settlement in Form-H along

with payment sheet of benefits accrued to workmen. Full

and final payment has been made by the 1st Party-

Management to the disputant workmen. Hence there

remains no dispute to be settled now.

3. Therefore the reference is decided in terms of

the settlement filed in Form-H which shall form part of

this order.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1807-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj MkbjsdVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj-,.M vnZl ds çca/ra=k ds laca¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 274@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@12@1999&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 274/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Director, Microwave (Maintenance)

ETR & Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 19-7-2013.

[No. L- 40012/12/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section 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. 274/2001

Date of Passing Order - 22nd February, 2013

BETWEEN

The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit - III;

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 012.

Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 007,

. . . 1 st Party-Managements.

AND

Their workman Shri Damburu Sahu,

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak, President,

Orissa Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, Po./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa -767001.

. . . 2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

M/s. J.K. Nayak

For the 1st Party-

Advocate.

....Managements

M/s. S. Mishra

For the 2nd Party-

Advocate.

....Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

Telecom, Director Microwave (Projects) and their workman,

vide Letter No. L- 40012/12/99/IR(DU) dated 19/21.07.1999

in respect of the following matter :

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4921

the workman Shri Damburu Sahu is legal & justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of

Communication

through

its

Department

Telecommunications runs Microwave system of

telecommunication in the whole country. For

convenience of administration, the entire industry is

divided into Projects and Maintenance which form an

integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both

the works of project or maintenance departmental

workers are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or

any of them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the

Management. The Project work and so also the

Maintenance work are not confined to specific areas or

locations, but reveal a continuity of the locations of

activities geographically. The workers engaged in the

Project or in the Maintenance work get shifted from place

to place as per work requirement even orally or through

telephonic message. “These daily rated workers are

exploited in payment of wages, denial of over time wages,

weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially

on 1.4.1989 and was placed under the Microwave

(Projects) at different stations and finally at Balipadar

station under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31.5.1997.

On completion of project work there he was assigned

duties in the Maintenance work at the same station where

he continued till 26.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and was forced to vacate the said station

with the help of police. He like other workers was not

paid his earned wages for which he moved various

authorities including the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade union.

After several approaches to the Management as also to

the Government authorities he along with other nine

workers were paid their earned wages with effect from

1.6.1997 till the date of refusal of employment. But they

were denied fourth employment between 24.12.1997 to

29.12.1997 i.e. from their respective dates of refusal of

employment. The 2nd Party-workman had put in about

nine years of continuous service under the 1st Party-

Management, but was neither paid any retrenchment

compensation or other benefits unlaw nor any

consideration was made for his length of service and inter

seniority amongst workers of the same category. The said

refusal was manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified

and cannot be sustained in law. Junior workers to him in

the same category were continued in employment.

Conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar were taken up

through the Trade Union in respect of all the ten similarly

situated workmen collectively which ultimately failed and

the present reference was made by the Government on

consideration of failure report submitted by the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar the action

of the 1st Party- Management in terminating the services

of the workmen is violative of Section 25-N, 25-G and

25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and

also the Maintenance work of the projects being a

continuous activity of the 1st Party-Management, there

could be no justification to terminate the service of the

workmen. The 1st Party Management has also not taken

into consideration the award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No.

268/2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with a

service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1 st Party - Management No.1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-Management

No. 1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers

of the Maintenance Division, So the question of

termination of service by the Management of Microwave

Maintenance Division does not arise at all. The Microwave

Project and Maintenance are two separate and

independent wings of the Telecom Department being

controlled by two different Chief General Managers. These

two units have got no recruiting power. They get their

working staff on deputation basis from their respective

territorial Telecom Circle/District. However sometimes

some works are carried out by them through contractors

or through casual workers on contract basis. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 has never taken the 2nd Party-workman

from the 1st Party-Management No, 2 i.e. the Director

Microwave Projects Division as there is no such rule or

provision in the Department to make over or take over any

working force from the Project to Maintenance or vice

versa. The Project work throughout Orissa is done through

different project divisions and after completion of. the

project work the systems are handed over to the

Maintenance Division. The casual labourers engaged in

one Project Division cannot be engaged in another

Maintenance Division simultaneously and they are never

taken by the Maintenance Division after closure of the

project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations generally managed by the respective ITOs/SDEs/

DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual labour is

engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies. Since 1997,

the department is carrying out the departmental work

“through registered contractors whenever necessary as

per the DoT order/instruction. The said order emphasizes

that due to ban order any kind of casual engagement should

not be made and departmental works should be done

through contractors. The averments of the 2nd Party-

workman regarding engagement and payment of wages

by the Maintenance division is blatant lie. The other

averments are also denied. It’s well settled by the

4922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble Supreme Court that a Project worker has no right

to continue after closure of the Project. Similar is the

situation in the present case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D.

Case No. 268/2001 are not continuining under the

Management of the Director, Microwave Maintenance

Division. They are being deployed by the contractor,

M/s. Oriental Security Service in different stations as

per contract with the 1st Party- Management No.1 and

are paid by the Oriental Security Services. There is no

employer and employee relationship between the 1st

Party- Management No.1 and the 2nd Party-workman and

also with 158 workmen of the said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an organization

of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)

and is being managed by the Chief General Manager,

Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom Project all

the employees are pulled up from the existing strength of

regular employees of the Department of Telecom. The

Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar has no power

to recruit the employees of any cadre Therefore the

question of appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd Party

workman by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 does not

arise, It has further been stated that during the continuance

of the Project work some casual workers are used to be

engaged by the site in-charge on as and when required

basis for miscellaneous work so also the 2nd Party-

workman was engaged since the work of the project is

not of perennial nature. After closure of the Project work

the Maintenance Division used to maintain the systems

and stations by taking staff from Telecom Circle on

deputation. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 never takes

any casual worker from the Project except on few

occasions for a short period. After closure of the Project

no work is available for the casual worker. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the

Project. The casual workers engaged in one Project

Division cannot be engaged in the Maintenance Division.

Further no casual labour engaged against any R.M./

Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned to engagement

of casual labourer since 30.3.1985 and till now it

continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his wages

till 31.5.l997 when the Project at Baliapadar was

completed and handed over to f Maintenance Wing. Since

no work was available after 31.5.1997 the 2nd Party-

workman was not provided with any work. But when the

2nd Party workman created disturbances at the site with

the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not vacate

the premises he was forced to vacate the premises with

the help of the police. ‘However on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project

Division had paid wages to the workman till 26.12.1997,

though he was not engaged at the site from 1.6.1997 to

26.12.1997. All the alleged workmen of the Tr. I.D. Case

No. 272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in Project Division at

Aska, Purushotampur, Balipadar and Digapahandi. “ The

Project work at these places has also been completed and

the stations have been handed-over to the Director,

(Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the year 1996/1997.

Hence the question of continuance of casual labourers of

the Project in Maintenance Division does not arise. Neither

there is any requirement of casual labourers nor any

vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In view of

the above the relief sought for by the claimant is devoid of

merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1 st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

Whether the action of the 1st Party-Management

by terminating the services of Shri Damburu Sahu

is legal and justified?

To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only one

witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-l and relied

on eight documents marked as Ext. A to H, while the 2nd

Party-workman has examined two witnesses, namely, Shri

Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-l and Shri Dambarudhar

Sahu, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and relied on several

documents marked as Ext.-l to 30/1.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No, 2 or 1.4.1989 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Baliapadar Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31.5.1997. During this

period he worked throughout under the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 and was never entrusted with any work

under the 1st Party-Management No. 1 i.e. Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd party-

workman has alleged that on completion of the Project

work at Baliapadar station he was assigned duties in the

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 29.12.1997. Thereafter he was refuse employment and

steps were taken to get vacated the said station with the

help of the police. The 1st Party-Management No.1 and 2

have denied the assignment of any duties to the 2nd Party-

workman in the Maintenance Division. There is no written

order or documentary proof that the 2 Party-workman was

assigned the duties in the Maintenance work at the

Baliapadar Station after 31.5.1997, but it is an admitted fact

that the 2nd Party-workman remained located at Baliapadar

station till 29.12.1997 and on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

the 2nd Party-workman and nine other similarly situated

workmen were paid wages from 1.6.1997 to 29.12.1997 or

till the date they remained stationed at their respective

stations by the 1st Party-Management No.2. Ext.-5 filed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4923

by the 2nd Party-workman shows that the matter of 2nd

Party-workman and similarly situated nine other workmen

for taking them into the Maintenance Division was pursued

at Head Office level by Deputy General Manager

(Administration) Telecom, but these workmen were not

taken by the Maintenance Division and their requests were

turned down as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were

finally refused employment. Therefore it cannot be

accepted that the 2nd Party-workman and similarly situated

nine other workmen were engaged or deputed in the

Maintenance work and therefore they cannot claim any

right for employment in Maintenance Division. But apart

from that the 2nd Party-workman and the other similarly

situated nine workmen, who are also said to have rendered

continuous service of 240 days or more have got a vested

right to continue in the job unless retrenched after following

the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, which says that “no workman employed in any

industry who has been in continuous service for not less

than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by

that employer until - the workman has given one month’s

notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has

been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of

notice and the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of

continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months. Admittedly the 1st Party Management has not

complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of

the 2nd party workman who has rendered nearly nine years

of continuous service illegal being in breach of aforesaid

provision of law. Ext.- 30/1 shows that the 2nd Party-

workman whose name is entered at S1. No. 14 of the list

had rendered 290 days work during January, 1996 to

December, 1997 the month-wise break up of which has not

been given. The 2nd party-workman has specifically stated

in his re-examination on 30.11.2006 that Ext.-30/l indicates

that he had worked for 290 days in a preceding year of his

termination. There is no specific denial from the side of

the Management either in the pleadings or in any

documents filed by it. Therefore it cannot be said that the

1st Party-Management has act legally in terminating the

services of the 2nd Party-workman. In view the above the

action of the 1st Party-Management in terminating the

services of Shri Damburu Sahu, the 2nd Party-workman

cannot be held be legal and justified. Issue No.1 is decided

against the 1st Part Management.

ISSUE NO.2

14. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Baliapadar has been completed long back

where he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of

reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation can

be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment

by the 1st Parry-Management without complying the

provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to him under

section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered

that the 1st Party-Management No.2 shall pay rupees one

lakh as compensation to the 2nd Party- workman in lieu of

reinstatement in service and also wages of one month for

notice period and retrenchment compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of

continuous service or any part there of in excess of six

months within a period of three months from the date of

publication of award. He shall also be offered re-employment

by the 1st Party-Management No.2 in case any casual worker

is employed by it in future in accordance with the provisions

of the Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1808-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj MkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj-,.M vnZl ds çca/ra=k ds laca¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 275@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@14@1999&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 275/

2001) of the Central Government Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Director, Microwave (Maintenance)

ETR & Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 15-7-2013.

[No. L-40012/14/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

SHRI J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer,

C.G..I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

4924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 275/2001

Date of Passing Order - 25th February, 2013

BETWEEN

The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit - III;

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 012.

Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 007,

. . . 1 st Party-Managements.

(AND)

Their workman Shri Swarajya Kumar Swain

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak, President,

Orissa Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, PO/Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa -767 001.

. . . 2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

M/s. J.K. Nayak

For the 1st Party-

Advocate.

Managemets.

M/s. S. Mishra

For the 2nd Party-

Advocate.

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act has referred an industurial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects) Telecom and their workman

vide Letter No. L-400l2/14/99/IR(DU) dated 19/21.07.1999

in respect of the following matter :

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services

of Shri Swarajya Ku. Swain is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both

the works of project and maintenance departmental

workers are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or

any of them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the

Management. The Project work and so also the

Maintenance work are not confined to specific areas or

locations, but reveal a continuity of the locations of

activities geographically. The workers engaged in the

Project or in the Maintenance work get shifted from place

to place as per work requirement even orally or through

telephonic message. These daily rated workers are

exploited in payment of wages, denial of over time wages,

weekly, holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1.9.1989 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Digapahandi Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31.5.1997. On

completion of project work there he was assigned duties

in the Maintenance work at the same station where he

continued till 24.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and was forced to vacate the said station

with the help of police. He like other workers was not paid

his earned wages for which he moved various authorities

including the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade Union. After

several approaches to the Management as also to the

Government authorities he along with other nine workers

were paid their earned wages with effect from 1.6.1997 till

the date of refusal of employment. But they were denied

further employment in between 24.12.1997 to 29.12.1997

i.e. from their respective dates of refusal of employment.

The 2nd Party-workman had put in about nine years of

continuous service under the 1st Party-Management, but

he was neither paid any retrenchment compensation or

other benefits under law nor any consideration was made

for his length of service and inter-se seniority amongst

workers of the same category. The said refusal was

manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and cannot be

sustained in law. Junior workers to him in the same category

were continued in employment. Conciliation proceedings

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar were taken up through the Trade Union in

respect of all the ten similarly situated workmen collectively

which ultimately failed and the present reference was made

by the Government on consideration of failure report

submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Bhubaneswar. The action of the 1st Party- Management

in terminating the services of the workmen is violative of ,

Section 25-N, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The Project work and also the Maintenance work of

the projects being a continuous activity of the 1st Party-

Management, there could be no justification to terminate

the service of the workmen. The 1st Party- Management

has also not taken into consideration the award passed in

Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/2001 in which 158 workmen with

similar history of employment under the 1st Party-

Management were given temporary status and are still

continuing in employment. This disparity in treatment with

an attitude of inhumanity and cruelty is highly

condemnable and therefore the workmen are entitled to

the relief of reinstatement with all service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party-Management No. 1 as the 2nd Party-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4925

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party- Management

No.1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers

of the Maintenance Division. So the question of

termination of service by the Management of Microwave

Maintenance Division does not arise at all. The Microwave

Project and Maintenance are two separate and

independent wings of the Telecom Department being

controlled by two different Chief General Managers. These

two units have got no recruiting Power. They get their

working staff on deputation basis from their respective

Territorial Telecom Circle/District. However sometimes

some works are carried out by them through contractors

or through casual workers on contract basis. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 has never taken the 2nd Party-workman

from the 1st Party-Management No. 2 i.e. the Director

Microwave Projects Division as there is no such rule or

provision in the Department to make over or take over any

working force from the Project to Maintenance or vice

versa. The Project work through-out Orissa is done through

different project divisions and after completion of the

project work the systems are handed over to the

Maintenance Division. The casual labourers engaged in

one Project Division cannot be engaged in another

Maintenance Division simultaneously and they are never

taken by the Maintenance Division after closure of the

project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations are generally managed by the respective JTOs/

SDEs/DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies.

Since 1997, the department is carrying out the departmental

work through registered contractors whenever necessary

as per the DoT order/instruction. The said order emphasizes

that due to ban order any kind of casual engagement should

not be made and departmental works should be done

through contractors. The averment of the 2nd Party-

workman regarding engagement and payment of wages

by the Maintenance division is a blatant lie. The other

averments are also denied. It is well settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that a Project worker has no right to

continue after closure of the Project. Similar is the situation

in the present case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D. Case No.

268/2001 are not continuing under the Management of the

Director, Microwave Maintenance Division. They are

being deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental Security

Service in different stations as per contract with the 1st

Party-Management No. 1 and are paid by the Oriental

Security Services, There is no employer and employee

relationship between the 1st Party. Management No. 1

and the 2nd Party-workman and also with 158 workmen of

the said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No.2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an organization

of Telecom Deptt. (now Bhara Sanchar Nigam Limited)

and is being managed by the Chief General Manager,

Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom Project all

th employees are pulled up from the existing strength of

regular employees of the Department of Telecom. The

Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar has no power

to recruit the employees of any cadre. Therefore the

question of appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd Party

workman by the 1 st Party-Management No.2 does not

arise. It has further been stated that during the continuance

of the Project work some casual workers are used to be

engaged by the site in-charge on as and when required

basis for miscellaneous work since the work of the project

is no of perennial nature. After closure of the Project work

the Maintenance Division used to maintain the systems

and stations. by taking staff from Telecom Circle on

deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.1 never takes

any casual worker from the Project except on few occasions

for a short period. After closure of the Project no work is

available for the casual workers. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the

Project. The casual workers engaged in one Project

Division cannot be engaged in the Maintenance Division.

Further no casual labour is engaged against any R.M./

Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned the engagement

of casual labourer since 30.3.1985 and till now it is

continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his wages

till 31.5.1997 when the Project at Digapahandi was

completed and handed over to the Maintenance Wing.

Since no work was available after 31.5.1997 the 2nd Party-

workman was not provided with any work. But when the

2nd Party workman created disturbances at the site with

the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not vacate

the premises he was forced to vacate the premises with

the help of the police. However on the intervention of th

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project

Division had pail wages to the workman till 24.12.1997,

though he was not engaged at the site from 1.6.1997 to

24.12.1997. All the alleged workmen of the Tr. I.D. Case

No. 272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in Project Division at

Aska, Purushotampur, Baliapadar and Digapahandi. The

Project work at these places has also been completed and

the stations have been handed-over to the Director,

(Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the year 1996/1997.

Hence the question of continuance of casual labourers of

the Project in Maintenance Division does not arise. Neither

there is any requirement of casual labourers nor any

vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In view of

the above the relief sought for by the claimant is devoid of

merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

Whether the action of the 1st Party-

Management by terminating the services of

Shri Swarajya Kumar Swain is legal and

justified?

4926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is

entitled?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only

one witness named Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-1 and

relied on eight documents mark as Ext.-A to H, while the

2nd Party-workman has examined two witness namely, Shri

Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-1 and Shri Swarajya Kumar

Swain, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and relied on several

documents marked as Ext.-l to 30/1.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual

labourer under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 on

1.9.1989 and worked at different stations and lastly at

Digapahandi Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till

31.5.1997. During this period he worked throughout

under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 and was never

entrusted with any work under the 1st Party-Management

No.1 i.e. Director, Microwave (Maintenance) Division.

The 2nd party-workman has alleged that on completion

of the Project work at Digapahandi station he was

assigned duties in the Maintenance work at the same

station where he continued till 24.12.1997. Thereafter

he was refused employment and steps were taken to get

vacated the said station with the help of the police. The

1st Party-Management No. 1 and 2 have denied the

assignment of any duties to the 2nd Party-workman in

the Maintenance Division. There is no written order or

documentary proof that the 2nd Party-workman was

assigned the duties in the Maintenance work at the

Digapahandi Station after 31.5.1997, but it is an admitted

fact that the 2nd Party-workman remained located at

Digapahandi station till 24.12.1997 and on to intervention

of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centra

Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party-workman and nine other

similarly situated workmen were paid wages from

1.6.1997 to 29.12.1997 or till the date they remained

stationed at their respective stations by the 1st Party-

Management No. 2. Ext.-5 filed by the 2nd Party-

workman shows that the matter of 2nd Party-workman and

similarly situated nine other workmen for taking them into

the Maintenance Division was pursued at Head Office

level by Deputy General Manager (Administration)

Telecom, but these workmen were not taken by the

Maintenance Division and their requests were turned

down as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were fmally

refused employment. Therefore it cannot be accepted

that the 2nd Party- workman and similarly situated nine

other worKmen were engaged or deputed in the

Maintenance work and therefore they cannot claim any

right for employment in Maintenance Division. But apart

from that the 2nd Party-workman and the other similarly

situated nine workmen, who are also said to have rendered

continuous service of 240 days or more have got a vested

right to continue in the job unless retrenched after

following the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, which says that “no workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service for not

less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched

by that employer until–the workman has been given one

month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of notice and the workman has been paid, at

the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months. Admittedly the 1st Party-Management has not

complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of

the 2nd party-workman who has rendered nearly nine years

of continuous service is illegal being in breach of aforesaid

provision of law. Ext.-30/1 shows that the 2nd Party-

workman whose name is entered at Sl. No. 17 of the list

had rendered 268 days work during 1996-1997, the month-

wise break up of which has not been given. The 2nd party-

workman has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief

on 12.7.2005 that he had worked continuously for 240 days

in each year of 12 months. There is no specific denial from

the side of the Management either in the pleadings or in

any documents filed by it. Therefore it cannot be said that

the 1st Party-Management has acted legally in terminating

the services of the 2nd Party-workman. In view of the

above the action of the 1st Party-Management in

terminating the services of Shri Swarajya Kr. Swain, the

2nd Party-workman cannot be held to be legal and justified.

Issue No. 1 is decided against the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but

since a period of more than 15 years has passed and the

work at the Project at Digapahandi has been completed

long bad where he was engaged, he cannot be given the

relief of reinstatement. However an appropriate

compensation can be awarded to him for his arbitrary

and illegal retrenchment by the 1st Party-Management

without complying the provisions of Section 25-F and

25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, besides the benefits

accrued to him under Section 25-F of the aforesaid Act.

Therefore it is ordered that the 1 st Party-Management

No. 2 shall pay rupees one lakh as compensation to the

2nd Party-workman in lieu of reinstatement in service

and also wages of one month for notice period and

retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days

average pay for every completed year of continuous

service or any part thereof in excess of six months within

a period of three months from the date of publication of

award. He shall also be offered re-employment by the

1st Party- Management No. 2 in case any casual worker is

employed by it in future in accordance with the provisions

of the Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4927

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1809-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k Hkqous'koj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 276@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 15&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@13@1999&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 276/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Director, Microwave

(Maintenance) ETR & Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 15-07-2013.

[No. L-40012/13/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 276/2001

Date of Passing Award—13th March, 2013

Between :

1. The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit-III,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 007

.....1st Party-Managements

(And)

Their Workman Shri Jagabandhu Muduli

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak, President, Orissa

Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, Po./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa—767 001

....2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

M/s. J. K. Nayak,

. . .

For the 1st Party

Advocate.

Managements

M/s. S. Mishra

. . .

For the 2nd Party-

Advocate.

Workman

A WAR D

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects), Telecom Deptt. and their

workman vide Letter No. L-40012/13/99-IR(DU) dated 19/

21-07-1999 in respect of the following matter :

“Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Jagabandhu Muduli is legal &

justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled ?”

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both

the works of project or maintenance departmental

workers are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or

any of them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the

Management. The Project work and so also the

Maintenance work are not confined to specific areas or

locations, but reveal a continuity of the locations of

activities geographically. The workers engaged in the

Project or in the Maintenance work get shifted from place

to place as per work requirement even orally or through

telephonic message. These daily rated workers are

exploited in payment of wages, denial of over time wages,

weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially

on 1-4-1989 and was placed under the Microwave

(Projects) at different stations and finally at Balipadar

station under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997.

On completion of project work there he was assigned

duties in the Maintenance work at the same station where

he continued till 26-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and was forced to vacate the said station

with the help of police. He like other workers was not

4928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

paid his earned wages for which he moved various

authorities including the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade union.

After several approaches to the Management as also to

the Government authorities he along with other nine

workers were paid their earned wages with effect from

1-6-1997 till the date of refusal of employment. But they

were denied further employment in between 24-12-1997

to 29-12-1997 i.e. from their respective dates of refusal

of employment. The 2nd Party-workman had put in about

nine years of continuous service under the 1st

Party-Management. But he was neither paid any

retrenchment compensation or other benefits under law

nor any consideration was made for his length of service

and inter-se seniority amongst workers of the same

category. The said refusal was manifestly illegal, arbitrary

and unjustified and cannot be sustained in law. Junior

workers to him in the same category were continued in

employment. Conciliation proceedings before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

were taken up through the Trade Union in respect of all

the ten similarly situated workmen collectively which

ultimately failed and the present reference was made by

the Government on consideration of failure Report

submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar. The action of the 1st Party-

Management in terminating the services of the workmen

is violative of Section 25-N, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The Project work and also the Maintenance

work of the projects being a continuous activity of the 1st

Party-Management, there could be no justification to

terminate the service of the workmen.1st Party-

Management has also not taken into consideration the

award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/2001 in which 158

workmen with similar history of employment under the

1st Party-Management were given temporary status and

are still continuing in employment. This disparity in

treatment with an attitude of inhumanity and cruelty is

highly condemnable and therefore the workmen are entitled

to the relief of reinstatement with all service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No. 1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party-Management No. 1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-Management

No. 1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers

of the Maintenance Division. So the question of

termination of service by the Management of Microwave

Maintenance Division does not arise at all. The Microwave

Project and Maintenance are two separate and

independent wings of the Telecom Department being

controlled by two different Chief General Managers. These

two units have got no recruiting power. They get their

working staff on deputation basis from their respective

territorial Telecom Circle/District. However sometimes

some works are carried out by them through contractors

or through casual workers on contract basis. The 1st Party-

Management No. 1 has never taken the 2nd Party-workman

from the 1st Party-Management No. 2 i.e. the Director

Microwave Projects Division as there is no such rule or

provision in the Department to make over or take over any

working force from the Project to Maintenance or vice

versa. The Project work through-out Orissa is done through

different project divisions and after completion of the

project work the systems are handed over to the

Maintenance Division. The casual labourers engaged in

one Project Division cannot be engaged in another

Maintenance Division simultaneously and they are never

taken by the Maintenance Division after closure of the

project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations are generally managed by the respective JTOs/

SDEs/DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies.

Since 1997, the department is carrying out the

departmental work through registered contractors

whenever necessary as per the DoT order/instruction.

The said order emphasizes that due to ban order any

kind of casual engagement should not be made and

departmental works should be done through contractors.

The averments of the 2nd Party-workman regarding

engagement and payment of wages by the Maintenance

division is a blatant lie. The other averments are also

denied. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

that a Project worker has no right to continue after

closure of the Project. Similar is the situation in the

present case. The 158 workmen in Tr. J.D. Case No.

268/2001 are not continuing under the Management of

the Director, Microwave Maintenance Division. They are

being deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental Security

Service in different stations as per contract with the 1st

Party- Management No.1 and are paid by the Oriental

Security Services. There is no employer and employee

relationship between the 1st Party-Management No.1 and

the 2nd Party-workman and also with 158 workmen of the

said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 has stated in

his written statement that Microwave Project is an

organization of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited) and is being managed by the Chief General

Manager, Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom

Project all the employees are pulled up from the existing

strength of regular employees of the Department of

Telecom. The Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar

has no power to recruit the employees of any cadre.

Therefore the question of appointment or reinstatement

of the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party-Management

No. 2 does not arise. It has further been stated that during

the continuance of the Project work some casual workers

are used to be engaged by the site in-charge on as and

when required basis for miscellaneous work so also the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4929

2nd Party-workman was engaged since the work of the

project is not of perennial nature. After closure of the

Project work the Maintenance Division used to maintain

the systems and stations by taking staff from Telecom

Circle on deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.1

never takes any casual worker from the Project except on

few occasions for a short period. After closure of the Project

no work is available for the casual workers. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the

Project. The casual workers engaged in one Project

Division cannot be engaged in the Maintenance Division.

Further no casual labour is engaged against any R.M./

Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned the engagement

of casual labourer since 30-3-1985 and till now it is

continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his wages

till 31-5-1997 when the Project at Baliapadar was completed

and handed over to the Maintenance Wing. Since no work

was available after 31-5-1997 the 2nd Party-workman was

not provided with any work. But when the 2nd Party-

workman created disturbances at the site with the staff of

the Maintenance Division and did not vacate the premises

he was forced to vacate the premises with the help of the

police. However on the intervention of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project Division had

paid wages to the workman till 26-12-1997, though he was

not engaged at the site from 1-6-1997 to 26-12-1997. All

the alleged workmen of the Tr. ID. Case No. 272/01 to 281/

01 were engaged in Project Division at Aska,

Purushotampur, Balipadar and Digapahandi. The Project

work at these places has also been completed and the

stations have been handed-over to the Director,

(Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the year 1996/1997.

Hence the question of continuance of casual labourers of

the Project in Maintenance Division does not arise. Neither

there is any requirement of casual labourers nor any

vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In view of

the above the relief sought for by the claimant is devoid of

merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the 1st Party-Management

by terminating the services of Shri Jagabandhu

Muduli is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled ?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only

one witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-1

and relied on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H,

while the 2nd Party-workman has examined two witnesses,

namely, Shri Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-1

and Shri Jagabandhu Muduli, the workman himself as

W.W.-2 and relied on, several documents marked as

Ext.-1 to 29.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual

labourer under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 on

1-4-1989 and worked at different stations and lastly at

Baliapadar Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till

31-5-1997. During this period he worked throughout

under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 and was never

entrusted with any work under the 1st Party-Management

No. 1 i.e. Director, Microwave (Maintenance) Division.

The 2nd party-workman has alleged that on completion

of the Project work at Baliapadar station he was assigned

duties in the Maintenance work at the same station where

he continued till 26-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and steps were taken to get vacated the said

station with the help of the police. The 1st Party-

Management No. 1 and 2 have denied the assignment of

any duties to the 2nd Party-workman in the Maintenance

Division. There is no written order or documentary proof

that the 2nd Party-workman was assigned the duties in

the Maintenance work at the Baliapadar Station after

31-5-1997, but it is an admitted fact that the 2nd Party-

workman remained located at Baliapadar station till

26-12-1997 and on the intervention of the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party-

workman and nine other similarly situated workmen were

paid wages from 1-6-1997 to 26-12-1997 or till the date

they remained stationed at their respective stations by

the 1st Party- Management No. 2. Ext.-5 filed by the 2nd

Party-workman shows that the matter of 2nd Party-

workman and similarly situated nine other workmen for

taking them into the Maintenance Division was pursued

at Head Office level by Deputy General Manager

(Administration) Telecom, but these workmen were not

taken by the Maintenance Division and their requests

were turned down as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they

were finally refused employment. Therefore it cannot

be accepted that the 2nd Party-workman and similarly

situated nine other workmen were engaged or deputed in

the Maintenance work and therefore they cannot claim

any right for employment in Maintenance Division.

10. In order to get the benefit of the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act the workman

has to prove that he has rendered continuous service for

not less than one year meaning thereby 240 days.

continuous service in one year under an employer.

11. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act

says that “no workman employed in any industry which

has been in continuous service for not less than one year

4930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until :-

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice

in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,

wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months :

12. In this case from the side of the 2nd party-

workman evidence of one Shri Prakash Chandra Patel, who

is said to be the General Secretary of the Orissa Telecom,

Microwave Mazdoor Sangh and of the workman himself

has been adduced. After filing his evidence through

affidavit the workman has failed to complete his re-

examination and face cross examination. Thereupon his

Advocate moved a petition on 6-4-2009 to the effect that

the disputant workman is not co-operating his conducting

lawyer for further examination and cross examination by

the Management. Therefore the evidence from the side of

the workman be closed. Acting upon this petition my

learned predecessor has closed the evidence of the

workman allowing the petition of the Advocate for the

2nd Party-workman. Before closing evidence of the 2nd

Party-workman so many opportunities were given to him

for making his evidence complete and also the cross

examination. Therefore the affidavit evidence filed by the

2nd Party-workman cannot be read in evidence and thus

the sole evidence of Shri Prakash Chandra Patel, W.W.-l

remains available from the side of the 2nd Party-workman.

This witness has stated in his evidence that the 2nd Party-

workman had worked in the project for seven year or more

till May, 1997 and then in the Maintenance Division upto

December, 1997. He has further stated that the disputant

workman was working at the Project at Aska station in

1997 and when the project was completed the same was

handed over to the Maintenance wing in June, 1997. But

the workman and others working there were asked to stay

on there to work in Maintenance till the last week of

December, 1997. He has denied in his cross examination

that the disputant has not worked for 240 days

continuously either in the Project or in the Maintenance.

He has also relied on the letter dated 2-3-2002 of the

Divisional Engineer, Telecom Microwave Project,

Berhampur along with its enclosures which is mentioned

at Sl. No. 27 of the list of documents filed by the 2nd party-

workman and proved it in his evidence. But this letter has

not been marked as Ext.-27. Instead a letter dated 6.3.2000

written by the Divisional Engineer (Administration),

Telecom Projects, East Zone, Calcutta to CGM, Telecom,

Orissa Telecom Circle, Bhubaneswar has wrongly been

marked as Ext.-27. The above referred letter dated 2-3-2002

placed on record after Ext.-21depicts the name of the 2nd

party-workman at Sl. No. 13 against which his date of

engagement has been shown as 8/1991 and the date of

discontinuation has been shown as 28-12-1997. Further it

has been shown against his name that he had worked 290

days during January, 1997 to December, 1997. In the remark

column it has been shown that he had been working in

each year from the date of engagement upto December,

1996 as and when required basis. In another list enclosed

with this letter marked as Ext.-22 it has been shown that

the 2nd party-workman was engaged from 1-4-1989 and

worked

till

31-5-1997 in the project and from 1-6-1997 to

26-12-1997 under S.D.E. Microwave through ACG, but the

period of working from 1-4-1989 to 31-5-1997 has to be

verified. But the first list enclosed with this letter clearly

shows that the 2nd party-workman had worked for 290

days from January, 1997 to December, 1997. This has not

been contradicted in any evidence adduced from the side

of the 1st Party-Management. Therefore it is to be held

that 2nd party-workman had worked with the 1st

Party-Management No.2 continuously for more than 240

days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the

date of his disengagement and so he is entitled to the

protection of safeguard provided under section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above the

disengagement of the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 amounts to retrenchment and the 1st

Party-Management No. 2 has acted illegally in terminating

the services of the 2nd Party-workman. This action of the

1st Party-Management No. 2 is accordingly held illegal

and unjustified. Issue No. 1 is decided against the 1st

Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Baliapadar has been completed long back

where he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of

reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation can

be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment

by the 1st Party-Management without complying the

provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to him under

section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered

that the 1st Party-Management No. 2 shall pay rupees one

lakh as compensation to the 2nd Party-workman in lieu of

reinstatement in service and also wages of one month for

notice period and retrenchment compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of

continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months within a period of three months from the date of

publication of award. He shall also be offered re-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4931

employment by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 in case

any casual worker is employed by it in future in accordance

with the provisions of the Section 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1810-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'koj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 277@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@06@1999&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 277/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Director, Microwave

(Maintenance) ETR & Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 15-07-2013.

[No. L-40012/06/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present :

SHRI J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 277/2001

Date of Passing Award—1st March, 2013

Between :

1. The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit-III,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-751 012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-751 007

. . . 1st Party Managements

And

Their Workman Shri Niranjan Sabat

C/o Lalit Kumar Nayak, President, Orissa

Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, Po./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa-767 001

. . .2nd PartyWorkman

Appearances:

M/s. J. K. Nayak,

. . .For the 1st Party

Advocate.

Managements.

M/s. Mishra

. . .For the 2nd Party-

Advocate.

Workman.

A W AR D

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects), Telecom Deptt. and their

workman vide Letter No. L-40012/6/99/IR(DU) dated

19/21-07-1999 in respect of the following matter :

“Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services of

Sh. Niranjan Sabat is legal & justified ? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled ?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both

the works of project and maintenance departmental

workers are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or

any of them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the

Management. The Project work and so also the

Maintenance work are not confined to specific areas or

locations, but reveal a continuity of the locations of

activities geographically. The workers engaged in the

Project or in the Maintenance work get shifted from place

to place as per work requirement even orally or through

telephonic message. These daily rated workers are

exploited in payment of wages, denial of over time wages,

weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1-4-1989 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Purushotampur

4932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till

31-5-1997. On completion of project work there he was

assigned duties in the Maintenance work at the same

station where he continued till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he

was refused employment and was forced to vacate the

said station with the help of police. He like other workers

was not paid his earned wages for which he moved various

authorities including the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade union.

After several approaches to the Management as also to

the Government authorities he along with other nine

workers were paid their earned wages with effect from 1-6-

1997 till the date of refusal of employment. But they were

denied further employment in between 24-12-1997 to 29-

12-1997 i.e. from their respective dates of refusal of

employment. The 2nd Party-workman had put in about

nine years of continuous service under the 1st

Party-Management, but he was neither paid any

retrenchment compensation or other benefits under law

nor any consideration was made for his length of service

and inter-se seniority amongst workers of the same

category. The said refusal was manifestly illegal, arbitrary

and unjustified and cannot be sustained in law. Junior

workers to him in the same category were continued in

employment. Conciliation proceedings before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

were taken up through the Trade Union in respect of all

the ten similarly situated workmen collectively which

ultimately failed and the present reference was made by

the Government on consideration of failure report

submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar. The action of the 1st Party-

Management in terminating the services of the workmen

is violative of Section 25-N, 25-F 25-G and 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and also the

Maintenance work of the projects being a continuous

activity of the 1st Party-Management, there could be no

justification to terminate the service of the workmen.

The 1st Party-Management has also not taken into

consideration the award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/

2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with

all service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No. 1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party-Management No. 1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-Management

No. 1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director or other officers of

the Maintenance Division. So the question of termination

of service by the Management of Microwave Maintenance

Division does not arise at all. The Microwave Project and

Maintenance are two separate and independent wings of

the Telecom Department being controlled by two different

Chief General Managers. These two units have got no

recruiting power. They get their working staff on deputation

basis from their respective territorial Telecom Circle/

District. However sometimes some works are carried out

by them through contractors or through casual workers

on contract basis. The 1st Party-Management No. 1 has

never taken the 2nd Party-workman from the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 i.e. the Director Microwave Projects

Division as there is no such rule or provision in the

Department to make over or take over any working force

from the Project to Maintenance or vice versa. The Project

work throughout Orissa is done through different project

divisions and after completion of the project work the

systems are handed over to the Maintenance Division.

The casual labourers engaged in one Project Division

cannot be engaged in another Maintenance Division

simultaneously and they are never taken by the

Maintenance Division after closure of the project work.

Infact the Maintenance work of different stations are

generally managed by the respective JTOs/SDEs/DEs by

existing regular staffs. Further no casual labour is engaged

against any R.M./Group-D vacancies. Since 1997, the

department is carrying out the departmental work through

registered contractors whenever necessary as per the DoT

order/instruction. The said order emphasizes that due to

ban order any kind of casual engagement should not be

made and departmental works should be done through

contractors. The averments of the 2nd Party-workman

regarding engagement and payment of wages by the

Maintenance division is a blatant lie. The other averments

are also denied. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that a Project worker has no right to continue after

closure of the Project. Similar is the situation in the present

case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/2001 are

not continuing under the Management of the Director,

Microwave Maintenance Division. They are being

deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental Security Service

in different stations as per contract with the 1st

Party-Management No.1 and are paid by the Oriental

Security Services. There is no employer and employee

relationship between the 1st Party-Management No.1 and

the 2nd Party-workman and also with 158 workmen of the

said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 has stated in

his written statement that Microwave Project is an

organization of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited) and is being managed by the Chief General

Manager, Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom

Project all the employees are pulled up from the existing

strength of regular employees of the Department of

Telecom. The Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar

has no power to recruit the employees of any cadre.

Therefore the question of appointment or reinstatement

of the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party-Management

No. 2 does not arise. It has further been stated that during

the continuance of the Project work some casual workers

are used to be engaged by the site in-charge on as and

when required basis for miscellaneous work since the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4933

work of the project is not of perennial nature. After closure

of the Project work the Maintenance Division used to

maintain the systems and stations by taking staff from

Telecom Circle on deputation. The 1st Party-Management

No.1 never takes any casual worker from the Project except

on few occasions for a short period. After closure of the

Project no work is available for the casual workers.

Therefore their engagement used to go along with the

closure of the Project. The casual workers engaged in one

Project Division cannot be engaged in the Maintenance

Division. Further no casual labour is engaged against any

R.M./Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned the

engagement of casual labourer since 30-3-1985 and till now

it is continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his

wages till 31-5-1997 when the Project at Purushotampur

was completed and handed over to the Maintenance Wing.

Since no work was available after 31-5-1997 the 2nd Party-

workman was not provided with any work. But when the

2nd Party- workman created disturbances at the site with

the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not vacate

the premises he was forced to vacate the premises with

the help of the police. However on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project

Division had paid wages to the workman till 29-12-1997,

though he was not engaged at the site from 1-6-1997 to 29-

12-1997. All the alleged workmen of the Tr. I.D. Case No.

272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in Project Division at Aska,

Purushotampur, Balipadar and Digapahandi. The Project

work at these places has also been completed and the

stations have been handed-over to the Director,

(Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the year 1996/1997.

Hence the question of continuance of casual labourers of

the Project in Maintenance Division does not arise. Neither

there is any requirement of casual labourers nor any

vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In view of

the above the relief sought for by the claimant is devoid of

merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the 1st Party-Management

by terminating the services of Shri Niranjan Sabat is

legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is

entitled ?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only

one witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-1

and relied on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H,

while the 2nd Party-workman has examined two witnesses,

namely, Shri Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-1 and

Shri Niranjan Sabat, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and

relied on, several documents marked as Ext.-1 to 30/1.

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 on

1-4-1989 and worked at different stations and lastly at

Purushotampur Station under the Bhubaneswar Division

till 31-5-1997. During this period he worked throughout

under the 1st Party-Management No.2 and was never

entrusted with any work under the 1st Party-Management

No. 1 i.e. Director, Microwave (Maintenance) Division.

The 2nd party-workman has alleged that on completion of

the Project work at Purushotampur station he was assigned

duties in the Maintenance work at the same station where

he continued till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and steps were taken to get vacated the said

station with the help of the police. The 1st Party-

Management No. 1 and 2 have denied the assignment of

any duties to the 2nd Party-workman in the Maintenance

Division. There is no written order or documentary proof

that the 2nd Party-workman was assigned the duties in

the Maintenance work at the Purushotampur Station after

31-5-1997, but it is an admitted fact that the 2nd Party-

workman remained located at Purushotampur station till

29-12-1997 and on the intervention of the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party-

workman and nine other similarly situated workmen were

paid wages from 1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997 or till the date they

remained stationed at their respective stations by the 1st

Party- Management No. 2. Ext.-5 filed by the 2nd Party-

workman shows that the matter of 2nd Party-workman and

similarly situated nine other workmen for taking them into

the Maintenance Division was pursued at Head Office

level by Deputy General Manager (Administration)

Telecom, but these workmen were not taken by the

Maintenance Division and their requests were turned down

as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were finally refused

employment. Therefore it cannot be accepted that the 2nd

Party-workman and similarly situated nine other workmen

were engaged or deputed in the Maintenance work and

therefore they cannot claim any right for employment in

Maintenance Division. But apart from that the 2nd Party-

workman and the other similarly situated nine workmen,

who are also said to have rendered continuous service of

240 days or more have got a vested right to continue in

the job unless retrenched after following the provisons of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which says

that “no workman employed in any industry who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer shall be

retrenched by that employer until - the workman has been

given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons

4934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or

the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages

for the period of notice and the workman has been paid, at

the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months”. Admittedly the 1st Party-Management has

not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of

the 2nd party-workman who has rendered nearly nine years

of continuous service is illegal being in breach of aforesaid

provision of law. Ext.-30/1 shows that the 2nd Party-

workman whose name is entered at Sl. No. 10 had rendered

290 days’ work during January, 1997 to December, 1997

the month-wise break up of which has not been given.

The 2nd party-workman has specifically stated in his re-

examination in chief on 29-6-2006 that “I was refused

employment on 28-12-1997 though by then I had rendered

continuous service for more than 240 days in each previous

years”. He has further stated that “I was in continuous

employment for more than 290 days during January, 1997

to December, 1997.” There is no specific denial of this fact

from the side of the Management either in the pleadings

or in any documents filed by it. Therefore it cannot be said

that the 1st Party-Management has acted legally in

terminating the services of the 2nd Party-workman. In view

of the above the action of the 1st Party-Management in

terminating the services of Shri Niranjan Sabat, the 2nd

Party-workman cannot be held to be legal and justified.

Issue No. 1 is decided against the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Purushotampur has been completed long

back where he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief

of reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation

can be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal

retrenchment by the 1st Party-Management without

complying the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the

Industrial Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to

him under Section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is

ordered that the 1st Party-Management No. 2 shall pay

rupees one lakh as compensation to the 2nd Party-workman

in lieu of reinstatement in service and also wages of one

month for notice period and retrenchment compensation

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months within a period of three months from the date

of publication of award. He shall also be offered re-

employment by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 in case

any casual worker is employed by it in future in accordance

with the provisions of the Section 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1811-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj MªkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnlZ ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 278@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@09@1999&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 278/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Director, Microwave (Maintenance)

ETR & Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 15-7-2013.

[No. L- 40012/09/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 278/2001

Date of Passing Award - 28th February, 2013

Between :

1. The Director, Microwave

(Maintenance), ETR,

Microwave Campus,

Unit - III, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) -751 012

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar

(Orissa) -751 007

. . . 1st Party-Managements.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4935

And

Their workman Shri Prakash

Chandra Badatya,

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak,

President, Orissa Telecom

Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, PO. Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa -767001. . . .

2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances :

M/s. J.K. Nayak,

. . .

For the 1st Party

Workman

Managements.

Advocate.

M/s. S. Mishra,

. . .

For the 2nd Party

Advocate.

Workman.

A WAR D

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects) Telecom and their

workman vide Letter No. L-40012/9/99-IR(DU) dated 19/

21.07.1999 in respect of the following matter :

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of Tele-

communications by terminating the services of

Shri Prakash Chandra Badatya is legal & justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both

the works of project and maintenance departmental

workers are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or

any of them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the

Management. The Project work and so also the

Maintenance work are not confined to specific areas or

locations, but reveal a continuity of the locations of

activities geographically. The workers engaged in the

Project or in the Maintenance work get shifted from place

to place as per work requirement even orally or through

telephonic message. These daily rated workers are

exploited in payment of wages, denial of over time

wages, weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1.4.1989 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Digapahandi Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997. On

completion of project work there he was assigned duties

in the .’ Maintenance work at the same station where he

continued till 24.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and was forced to vacate the said station

with the help of police. He like other workers was not paid

his earned wages for which he moved various authorities

including the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade union. After

several approaches to the Management as also to the

Government authorities he along with other nine workers

were paid their earned wages with effect from 1-6-1997 till

the date of refusal of employment. But they were denied

further employment in between 24-12-1997 to 29-12-1997

i.e. from their respective dates of refusal of employment.

The 2nd Party-workman had put in about nine years of

continuous service under the 1st Party-Management, but

he was neither paid any retrenchment compensation or

other benefits under law nor any consideration was made

for his length of service and inter-se seniority amongst

workers of the same category. The said refusal was

manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and cannot be

sustained in law. Junior workers to him in the same category

were continued in employment. Conciliation proceedings

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central),

Bhubaneswar were taken up through the Trade Union in

respect of all the ten similarly situated workmen collectively

which ultimately failed and the present reference was made

by’ the Government on consideration of failure report

submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar. The action of the 1st Party-

Management in terminating the services of the workmen

is violative of Section 25-N, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and also the

Maintenance work of the projects being a continuous

activity of the 1st Party-Management, there could be no

justification to terminate the service of the workmen. The

1st Party- Management has also not taken into

consideration the award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/

2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with all

service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party-Management No. 1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-Management

No. 1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers

of the Maintenance Division. So the question of

termination of service by the Management of Microwave

4936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Maintenance Division does not arise at all. The Microwave

Project and Maintenance are two separate and

independent wings of the Telecom Department being

controlled by two different Chief General Managers. These

two units have got no recruiting power. They get their

working staff on deputation basis from their respective

territorial Telecom Circle/District. However sometimes

some works are carried out by them through contractors

or through casual workers on contract basis. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 has never taken the 2nd Party-workman

from the 1st Party-Management No. 2 i.e. the Director

Microwave Projects Division as there is no such rule or

provision in the Department to make over or take over any

working force from the Project to Maintenance or vice

versa. The Project work through-out Orissa is done through

different project divisions and after completion of the

project work the systems are handed over to the

Maintenance Division. The casual labourers engaged in

one Project Division cannot be engaged in another

Maintenance Division simultaneously and they are never

taken by the Maintenance Division after closure of the

project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations are generally managed by the respective JTOs/

SDEs/DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies.

Since 1997, the department is carrying out the departmental

work through registered contractors whenever necessary

as per the DoT order/instruction. The said order emphasizes

that due to ban order any kind of casual engagement should

not be made and departmental works should be done

through contractors. The averment of the 2nd Party

workman regarding engagement and payment of wages

by the Maintenance division is a blatant lie. The other

averments are also denied. It is well settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that a Project worker has no right to

continue after closure of the Project. Similar is the situation

in the present case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D. Case

No. 268/2001 are not continuing under the Management

of the Director, Microwave Maintenance Division. They

are being deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental

Security Service in different stations as per contract with

the 1st Party-Management No.1 and are paid by the

Oriental Security Services. There is no employer and

employee relationship between the 1st Party- Management

No.1 and the 2nd Party-workman and also with 158 of the

said I.D. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an organization

of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)

and is being managed by the Chief General Manager,

Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom Project all

the employees are pulled up from the existing strength of

regular employees of the Department of Telecom. The

Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar has no power

to recruit the employees of any cadre. Therefore the

question of appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd Party-

workman by the 1st Party-Management No.2 does not

arise. It has further been stated that during the continuance

of the Project work some casual workers are used to be

engaged by the site in-charge on as and when required

basis for miscellaneous work since the work of the project

is not of perennial nature. After closure of the Project

work the Maintenance Division used to maintain the

systems and stations by taking staff from Telecom Circle

on deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.1 never

takes any casual worker from the Project except on few

occasions for a short period. After closure of the Project

no work is available for the casual workers. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the

Project. The casual workers engaged in one Project

Division cannot be engaged in the Maintenance Division.

Further no casual labour is engaged against any R.M./

Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned the engagement

of casual labourer since 30.3.1985 and till now it is

continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his wages

till 31.5.1997 when the Project at Digapahandi was

completed and handed over to the Maintenance Wing.

Since no work was available after 31.5.1997 the 2nd Party-

workman was not provided with any work. But when the

2nd Party- workman created disturbances at the site with

the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not vacate

the premises he was forced to vacate the premises with

the help of the police. However on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project

Division had paid wages to the workman till 24.12.1997,

though he was not engaged at the site from 1.6.1997 to

24.12.1997. All the alleged workmen of the Tr. I.D. Case

No. 272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in Project Division at

Aska, Purushotampur, Baliapadar and Digapahandi. The

Project work at these, places has also been completed and

the stations have been handed-over to the Director,

(Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the year 1996/1997.

Hence the question of continuance of casual labourers of

the Project in Maintenance Division does not arise. Neither

there is any requirement of casual labourers nor any

vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In view of

the above the relief sought for by the claimant is devoid of

merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted parawise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the 1st Party- Management

by terminating the services of Shri Prakash

Chandra Badatya is legal and justified?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4937

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only

one witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-l and

relied on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H, while the

2nd Party-workman has examined two witnesses, namely,

Shri Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-l and Shri Prakash

Chandra Badatya, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and

relied on several documents marked as Ext.-l to 30.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. From the facts brought out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No.2 on 1.9.1989 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Digapahandi

Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31.5.1997.

During this period he worked throughout under the 1st

Party-Management No.2 and was never entrusted with

any work under the 1st Party-Management No.1, i.e.

Director, Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd

party-workman has alleged that on completion of the Project

work at Digapahandi station he was assigned duties in

the Maintenance work at the same station where he

continued till 24.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and steps were taken to get vacated the said

station with the help of the police. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 and 2 have denied the assignment of

any duties to the 2nd Party-workman in the Maintenance

Division. There is no written order or documentary proof

that the 2nd Party-workman was assigned the duties in

the Maintenance work at the Digapahandi Station after

31.5.1997, but it is an admitted fact that the 2nd Party-

workman remained located at Digapahandi station till

24.12.1997 and on the intervention of the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party-

workman and nine other similarly situated workmen were

paid wages from 1.6.1997 to 29.12.1997 or till the date they

remained stationed at their respective stations by the

1st Party- Management No.2. Ext.-5 filed by the 2nd Party-

workman shows that the matter of 2nd Party-workman and

similarly situated nine other workmen for taking them into

the Maintenance Division was pursued at Head Office

level by Deputy General Manager (Administnition)

Telecom, but these workmen were not taken by the

Maintenance Division and their requests were turned down

as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were finally refused

employment. Therefore it cannot be accepted that the 2nd

Party-workman and similarly situated nine other workmen

were engaged or deputed in the Maintenance work and

therefore they cannot claim any right for employment in

Maintenance Division. But apart from that the 2nd Party-

workman and the other similarly situated nine workmen,

who are also said to have rendered continuous service of

240 days or more have got a vested right to continue in

the job unless retrenched after following the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which says

that “no workman employed in any industry who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - the

workman has been given one month’s notice in writing

indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of

notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of

such notice, wages for the period of notice and the

workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment,

compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’

average pay for every completed year of continuous

service or any part thereof in excess of six months”.

Admittedly the 1st Party-Management has not complied

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of the 2nd party-

workman who has rendered nearly nine years of

continuous service is illegal being in breach of aforesaid

provision of law. Ext.-30 shows that the 2nd Party-

workman whose name is entered at S1. No. 18 in the

enclosed list Ext.-30/1 had rendered 268 days work during

1996-1997, the month-wise break up of which has not been

given. The 2nd party-workman has specifically stated in

his re-examination-in-chief on 31.8.2006 that he had worked

for more than 240 days during 1996-97. There is no specific

denial of this fact from be side of the Management either

in the pleadings or in any documents filed by it. Therefore

it cannot be said that the 1st Party- Management has acted

legally in terminating the services of the 2nd Party-

workman. In view of the above the action of the 1st Party-

Management in terminating the services of Shri Prakash

Chandra Badatya, the 2nd Party-workman cannot held to

be legal and justified. Issue No.1 is decided against the

1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Digapahandi has been completed long back

where he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of

reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation can

be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment

by the 1st Party-Management without complying the

provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to him under

section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered

that the 1st Party-Management No. 2 shall pay rupees

one lakh as compensation to the 2nd party-workman in

lieu of reinstatement in service and also wages of one

month for notice period and retrenchment compensation

4938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

equivalent to 15 days’ average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months within a period of three months from the date

of publication of award. He shall also be offered re-

employment by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 in case

any casual worker is employed by it in future in accordance

with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1812-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj MªkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnZl ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 279@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh g]S tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@11@1999&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 279/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum

- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)

ETR & Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 15-7-2013.

[ No. L- 40012/11/1999-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 279/2001

Date of Passing Award - 25th February, 2013

Between :

1. The Director, Microwave

(Maintenance), ETR,

Microwave Campus,

Unit -III, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)- 751 012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar

(Orissa)-751 007,

. . . 1st Party-Managements.

And

Their workman Shri Pramod

Kumar Panigrahi,

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak,

President, Orissa Telecom

Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, PO. Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa -767001

. . . 2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances :

M/s. J.K. Nayak

. . . For the 1st Party

Advocate.

Managements

M/s. S. Mishra

. . . For the 2nd Party

Advocate.

Workman

A WAR D

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects) Telecom and their workman

vide Letter No. L-40012/11/99-IR(DU) dated 19/21-07-1999

in respect of the following matter :

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of Tele-

communications by terminating the services of

Shri Pramod Kumar Panigrahi is legal & justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both

the works of project and maintenance departmental

workers are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or

any of them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the

Management. The Project work and so also the

Maintenance work are not confined to specific areas or

locations, but reveal a continuity of the locations of

activities geographically. The workers engaged in the

Project or in the Maintenance work get shifted from place

to place as per work requirement even orally or through

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4939

telephonic message. These daily rated workers are

exploited in payment of wages, denial of over time wages,

weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1-4-1989 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Aska Station under the

Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997. On completion of

project work there he was assigned duties in the

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused employment and

was forced to vacate the said station with the help of

police. He like other workers was not paid his earned wages

for which he moved various authorities including the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

with the help of his trade union. After several approaches

to the Management as also to the Government authorities

he along with other nine workers were paid their earned

wages with effect from 1-6-1997 till the date of refusal of

employment. But they were denied further employment in

between 24-12-1997 to 29-12-1997 i.e. from their respective

dates of refusal of employment. The 2nd Party-workman

had put in about nine years of continuous service under

the 1st Party-Management, but he was neither paid any

retrenchment compensation or other benefits under law

nor any consideration was made for his length of service

and inter-se-seniority amongst workers of the same

category. The said refusal was manifestly illegal, arbitrary

and unjustified and cannot be sustained in law. Junior

workers to him in the same category were continued in

employment. Conciliation proceedings before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Bhubaneswar

were taken up through the Trade Union in respect of all

the ten similarly situated workmen collectively which

ultimately failed and the present reference was made by

the Government on consideration of failure report

submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar. The action of the 1st Party-

Management in terminating the services of the workmen

is violative of Section 25-N, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and also the

Maintenance work of the projects being a continuous

activity of the 1st Party-Management, there could be no

justification to terminate the service of the workmen. The

1st Party- Management has also not taken into

consideration the award passed in Tr. J.D. Case No. 268/

2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with all

service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party-Management No. 1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party- Management

No. 1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers

of the Maintenance Division. So the question of

termination of service by the Management of Microwave

Maintenance Division does not arise at all. The Microwave

Project and Maintenance are two separate and

independent wings of the Telecom Department being

controlled by two different Chief General Managers. These

two units have got no recruiting power. They get their

working staff on deputation basis from their respective

territorial Telecom Circle/District. However sometimes

some works are carried out by them through contractors

or through casual workers on contract basis. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 has never taken the 2nd Party-workman

from the 1st Party-Management No.2 i.e. the Director

Microwave Projects Division as there is no such rule or

provision in the Department to make over or take over any

working force from the Project to Maintenance or vice

versa. The Project work through-out Orissa is done through

different project divisions and after completion of the

project work the systems are handed over to the

Maintenance Division. The casual labourers engaged in

one Project cannot be engaged in another Maintenance

Division simultaneously and they are never taken by the

Maintenance Division after closure of the project work.

Infact the Maintenance work of different stations are

generally managed by the respective JTOs/SDEs/DEs by

existing regular staffs. Further no casual labour is engaged

against any R.M./Group- D vacancies. Since 1997, the

department is carrying out the departmental work through

registered contractors whenever necessary as per the DoT

order/instruction. The said order emphasizes that due to

ban order any kind of casual engagement should not be

made and departmental works should be done through

contractors. The averments of the 2nd Party workman

regarding engagement and payment of wages by the

Maintenance division is a blatant lie. The other averments

are also denied. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that a Project worker has no right to continue after

closure of the Project. Similar is the situation in the present

case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/2001 are

not continuing under the Management of the Director,

Microwave Maintenance Division. They are being

deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental Security Service

in different stations as per contract with the 1st Party-

Management No.1 and are paid by the Oriental Security

Services. There is no employer and employee relationship

between the 1st Party- Management No.1 and the 2nd

Party-workman and also with 158 workmen in the said. I.D.

Case .

5. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an organization

of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)

and is being managed by the Chief General Manager,

Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom Project all

4940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the employees are pulled up from the existing strength of

regular employees of the Department of Telecom. The

Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar has no power

to recruit the employees of any cadre. Therefore the

question of appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd Party-

workman by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 does not

arise. It has further been stated that during the continuance

of the Project work some casual workers are used to be

engaged by the site in-charge on as and when required

basis for miscellaneous work since the work of the project

is not of perennial nature. After closure of the Project

work the Maintenance Division used to maintain the

systems and stations by taking staff from Telecom Circle

on deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.1 never

takes any casual worker from the Project except on few

occasions for a short period. After closure of the Project

no work is available for the casual workers. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the

Project. The casual workers engaged in one Project

Division cannot be engaged in the Maintenance Division.

Further no casual labour is engaged against any R.M./

Group-D vacancies. The DoT has banned the engagement

of casual labourer since 30-3-1985 and till now it is

continuing. The 2nd Party-workman was paid his wages

till 31-5-1997 when the Project at Aska was completed

and handed over to the Maintenance Wing. Since no work

was available after 31-5-1997 the 2nd Party-workman was

not provided with any work. But when the 2nd Party-

workman created disturbances at the site with the staff of

the Maintenance Division and did not vacate the premises

he was forced to vacate the premises with the help of the

police. However on the intervention of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project Division had

paid wages to the workman till 29-12-1997, though he was

not engaged at the site from 1.6.1997 to 29-12-1997. All the

alleged workmen of the Tr. I.D. Case No. 272/01 to 281/01

were engaged in Project Division at Aska, Purushotampur,

Baliapadar and Digapahandi. The Project work at these

places has also been completed and the stations have

been handed-over to the Director, (Maintenance) ETR,

Bhubaneswar in the year 1996/1997. Hence the question

of continuance of casual labourers of the Project in

Maintenance Division does not arise. Neither there is any

requirement of casual labourers nor any vacancy exists in

the Maintenance Division. In view of the above the relief

sought for by the claimant is devoid of merit and liable to

be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the 1st Party-Management

by terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar

Panigrahi is legal and justified?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only

one witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-l and

relied on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H, while the

2nd Party-workman has examined two witnesses, namely,

Shri Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-l and Shri Pramod

Kumar Panigrahi, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and relied

on several documents marked as Ext.-1 to 31.

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1

9. From the facts broughtout in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No. 2 on 1-4-1989 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Aska Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997. During this

period he worked throughout under the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 and was never entrusted with any work

under the 1st Party-Management No.1, i.e. Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd party-

workman has alleged that on completion of the Project

work at Aska station he was assigned duties in the

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 29-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused employment

and steps were taken to get vacated the said station with

the help of the police. The 1st Party-Management No.1

and 2 have denied the assignment of any duties to the 2nd

Party-workman in the Maintenance Division. There is no

written order or documentary proof that the 2nd Party-

workman was assigned the duties in the Maintenance work

at the Aska Station after 31-5-1997, but it is an admitted

fact that the 2nd Party-workman remained located at Aska

station till 29-12-1997 and on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

the 2nd Party-workman and nine other similarly situated

workmen were paid wages from 1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997 or

till the date they remained stationed at their respective

stations by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 Ext.-5 filed

by the 2nd Party-workman shows that the matter of 2nd

Party-workman and similarly situated nine other workmen

for taking them into the Maintenance Division was pursued

at Head Office level by Deputy General Manager

(Administration) Telecom, but these workmen were not

taken by the Maintenance Division and their requests were

turned down as is revealed from Ext.-6. Thus they were

finally refused employment. Therefore it cannot be

accepted that the 2nd Party- workman and similarly situated

nine other workmen were engaged or deputed in the

Maintenance work and therefore they cannot claim any

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4941

right for employment in Maintenance Division. But apart

from that the 2nd Party-workman and the other similarly

situated nine workmen, who are also said to have rendered

continuous service of 240 days or more have got a vested

right to continue in the job unless retrenched after

following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, which says that “no workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service for not

less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched

by that employer until—the workman has been given one

month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of notice and the workman has been paid, at the

time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months”. Admittedly the 1st Party-Management has

not complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of

the 2nd party-workman who has rendered nearly nine years

of continuous service is illegal being in breach of aforesaid

provision of law. Ext.-30 shows that the 2nd Party-

workman whose name is entered at Sl. No. 11 in the

enclosed list Ext.-30/1 had rendered 290 days work during

January, 1997 to December, 1997, the month-wise break up

of which has not been given. The 2nd party-workman has

specifically stated in his cross examination on 10-1-2006

that it is not a fact that, I had never worked continuously

for 240 days either under the Project or under the

maintenance. There is no specific denial of this fact from

the side of the Management either in the pleadings or in

any documents filed by it. Therefore, it cannot be said

that the 1st Party-Management has acted legally in

terminating the services of the 2nd Party-workman. In view

of the above the action of the 1st Party-Management in

terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar Panigrahi,

the 2nd Party workman cannot be held to be legal and

justified. Issue No.1 is decided against the 1st Party-

Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Aska has been completed long back where

he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of

reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation can

be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment

by the 1st Party-Management without complying the

provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to him under

section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered

that the 1st Party-Management No. 2 shall pay rupees

one lakh as compensation to the 2nd party-workman in

lieu of reinstatement in service and also wages of one

month for notice period and retrenchment compensation

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months within a period of three months from the date

of publication of award. He shall also be offered re-

employment by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 in case

any casual worker is employed by it in future in accordance

with the provisions of the Section 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1813-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj MªkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnlZ ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 280@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 15&7&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@07@1999&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 280/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum

- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Director, Microwave (Maintenance)

ETR & Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 15-7-2013.

[No. L- 40012/07/1999-IR(DU]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 280/2001

Date of Passing Award - 28th February, 2013

Between :

1. The Director, Microwave

(Maintenance), ETR,

4942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Microwave Campus, Unit - III,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar

(Orissa) 751 007,

. . . 1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Their workman Shri Bholanath Pradhan

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak,

President, Orissa

Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, PO./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa -767001.

. . . 2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances :

M/s. J.K. Nayak

. . .For the Ist Party Workman

Advocate.

Managements.

M/s. S. Mishra

. . .For the 2nd Party

Advocate.

Workman.

A WAR D

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects) Telecom and their workman

vide Letter No. L-40012/7/99-IR(DU) dated 19/21-7-1999 in

respect of the following matter:

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services of

Shri Bholanath Pradhan is legal and justified ? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that

the Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both the

works of project and maintenance departmental workers

are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or any of

them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the Management.

The Project work and so also the Maintenance work are

not confined to specific areas or locations, but reveal a

continuity of the locations of activities geographically.

The workers engaged in the Project or in the Maintenance

work get shifted from place to place as per work requirement

even orally or through telephonic message. These daily

rated workers are exploited in payment of wages, denial of

over time wages, weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1-10-1989 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects)

at different stations and finally at Digapahandi Station under

the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997. On completion of

project work there he was assigned duties in the

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 24-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused employment and

was forced to vacate the said station with the help of police.

He like other workers was not paid his earned wages for

which he moved various authorities including the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar with the help

of his trade union. After several approaches to the

Management as also to the Government authorities he along

with other nine workers were paid their earned wages with

effect from 1-6-1997 till the date of refusal of employment.

But they were denied further employment in between

24-12-1997 to 29-12-1997 i.e. from their respective dates of

refusal of employment. The 2nd Party-workman had put in

about nine years of continuous service under the 1st Party-

Management, but he was neither paid any retrenchment

compensation or other benefits under law nor any

consideration was made for his length of service and inter-

se seniority amongst workers of the same category. The

said refusal was manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified

and cannot be sustained in law. Junior workers to him in

the same category were continued in employment.

Conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar were taken up

through the Trade Union in respect of all the ten similarly

situated workmen collectively which ultimately failed and

the present reference was made by the Government on

consideration of failure report submitted by the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. The action

of the 1st Party-Management in terminating the services of

the workmen is violative of Section 25-N, 25-F, 25-G and

25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Project work and

also the Maintenance work of the projects being a

continuous activity of the 1st Party-Management, there

could be no justification to terminate the service of the

workmen. The 1st Party-Management has also not taken

into consideration the award passed in Tr. I.D. Case No.

268/2001 in which 158 workmen with similar history of

employment under the 1st Party-Management were given

temporary status and are still continuing in employment.

This disparity in treatment with an attitude of inhumanity

and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore the

workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with all

service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st party-Management No.1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-Management

No.1. He was never engaged in the Microwave

Maintenance Division by the Director and other officers of

the Maintenance Division. So the question of termination

of service by the Management of Microwave Maintenance

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4943

Division does not arise at all. The Microwave Project and

Maintenance are two separate and independent wings of

the Telecom Department being controlled by two different

Chief General Managers. These two units have got no

recruiting power. They get their working staff on deputation

basis from their respective territorial Telecom Circle/District.

However sometimes some works are carried out by them

through contractors or through casual workers on contract

basis. The 1st Party-Management No.1 has never taken

the 2nd Party-workman from the 1st Party-Management

No. 2 i.e. the Director Microwave Projects Division as there

is no such rule or provision in the Department to make over

or take over any working force from the Project to

Maintenance or vice versa. The Project work through-out

Orissa is done through different project divisions and after

completion of the project work the systems are handed

over to the Maintenance Division. The casual labourers

engaged in one Project Division cannot be engaged in

another Maintenance Division simultaneously and they

are never taken by the Maintenance Division after closure

of the project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations generally managed by the respective are JTOs/

SDEs/DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group- D vacancies.

Since 1997, the department is carrying out the departmental

work through registered contractors whenever necessary

as per the DoT order/instruction. The said order emphasizes

that due to ban order. any kind of casual engagement should

not be made and departmental works should be done

through contractors. The averments of the 2nd Party-

workman regarding engagement and payment of wages by

the Maintenance division is a blatant lie. The other

averments are also denied. It is well settled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that a Project worker has no right to continue

after closure of the Project. Similar is the situation in the

present case. The 158 workmen in Tr. I.D. Case No. 268/

2001 are not continuing under the Management of the

Director, Microwave Maintenance Division. They are being

deployed by the contractor, M/s. Oriental Security Service

in different stations as per contract with the 1st Party-

Management No.1 and are paid by the Oriental Security

Services. There is no employer and employee relationship

between the 1 st Party-Management No.1 and the 2nd

Party-workman and also with 158 workmen of the said I.D.

Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an organization

of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)

and is being managed by the Chief General Manager,

Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom Project all

the employees are pulled up from the existing strength of

regular employees of the Department of Telecom. The

Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar has no power

to recruit the employees of any cadre. Therefore the

question of appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd

Party-workman by the 1st Party-Management

No.2 does not arise. It has further been stated that during

the continuance of the Project work some casual workers

are used to be engaged by the site in-charge on as and

when required basis for miscellaneous work since the work

of the project is not of perennial nature. After closure of

the Project work the Maintenance Division used to maintain

the systems and stations by taking staff from Telecom Circle

on deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.1 never takes

any casual worker from the Project except on few occasions

for a short period. After closure of the Project no work is

available for the casual workers. Therefore their engagement

used to go along with the closure of the Project. The casual

workers engaged in one Project Division cannot be engaged

in the Maintenance Division. Further no casual labour is

engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies. The DoT

has banned the engagement of casual labourer since

30-3-1985 and till now it is continuing. The 2nd Party-

workman was paid his wages till 31-5-1997 when the Project

at Digapahandi was completed and handed over to the

Maintenance Wing. Since no work was available after 31-5-

1997 the 2nd Party-workman was not provided with any work.

But when the 2nd Party-workman created disturbances at the

site with the staff of the Maintenance Division and did not

vacate the premises he was forced to vacate the premises with

the help of the police. However on the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) the Project Division

had paid wages to the workman till 24-12-1997, though he was

not engaged at the site from 1-6-1997 to 24-12-1997. All the

alleged workmen of the Tr. I.D. Case No. 272/01 to 281/01 were

engaged in Project Division at Aska, Purushotampur,

Baliapadar and Digapahandi. The Project work at these places

has also been completed and the stations have been handed-

over to the Director, (Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the

year 1996/1997. Hence the question of continuance of casual

labourers of the Project in Maintenance Division does not

arise. Neither there is any requirement of casual labourers nor

any vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In view of

the above the relief sought for by the claimant is devoid of

merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the 1st party-Management No.1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the 1st Party-Management

by terminating the services of Shri Bholanath Pradhan

is legal and justified?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only one

witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-l and relied

on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H, while the

4944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2nd Party-workman has examined two witnesses, namely,

Shri Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-l and Shri Bholanath

Pradhan, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and relied on

several documents marked as Ext.-l to 30/1.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed that

the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No.2 on 1-10-1989 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Digapahandi

Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5 -1997.

During this period he worked throughout under the 1st

Party-Management No.2 and was never entrusted with any

work under the 1st Party-Management No.1 i.e. Director,

Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd party-

workman has alleged that on completion of the Project

work at Digapahandi station he was assigned duties in the

Maintenance work at the same station where he continued

till 24-12-1997. Thereafter he was refused employment

and steps were taken to get vacated the said station with

the help of the police. The 1st Party-Management No. 1

and 2 have denied the assignment of any duties to the 2nd

Party-workman in the Maintenance Division. There is no

written order or documentary proof that the 2nd Party-

workman was assigned the duties in the Maintenance work

at the Digapahandi Station after 31-5-1997, but it is an

admitted fact that the 2nd Party-workman remained

located at Digapahandi station till 24-12-1997 and on the

intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party-workman and nine

other similarly situated workmen were paid wages from

1-6-1997 to 29-12-1997 or till the date they remained

stationed at their respective stations by the

1st Party-Management No.2. Ext.-5 filed by the 2nd Party-

workman shows that the matter of 2nd Party-workman and

similarly situated nine other workmen for taking them into

the Maintenance Division was pursued at Head Office level

by Deputy General Manager (Administration) Telecom, but

these workmen were not taken by the Maintenance Division

and their requests were turned down as is revealed from

Ext.-6. Thus they were finally refused employment.

Therefore it cannot be accepted that the 2nd Party-workman

and similarly situated nine other workmen were engaged or

deputed in the Maintenance work and therefore they cannot

claim any right for employment in Maintenance Division.

But apart from that the 2nd Party-workman and the other

similarly situated nine workmen, who are also said to have

rendered continuous service of 240 days or more have got

a vested right to continue in the job unless retrenched

after following the provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, which says that “no workman

employed in any industry who has been in continuous

service for not less than one year under an employer shall

be retrenched by that employer until - the workman has

been given one month's notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has

expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,

wages for the period of notice and the workman has been

paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall

be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in

excess of six months’’. Admittedly the 1st Party-Management

has not complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment of the

2nd party-workman who has rendered nearly nine years of

continuous service is illegal being in breach of aforesaid

provision of law. Ext.- 30/1 shows that the 2nd Party-workman

whose name is entered at Sl. No. 19 in the enclosed list Ext.-

30 had rendered 268 days work during 1996-97, the month-

wise break up of which has not been given. The 2nd party-

workman has specifically stated in his further examination

on 6-3-2006 that ‘‘by the time I was refused employment I

had already worked continuously for 240 days in the same

year and also in the previous year i.e. from 1989 to December,

1997’’. There is no specific denial of this fact from the side of

the Management either in the pleadings or in any documents

filed by it. Therefore it cannot be said that the 1st Party-

Management has acted legally in terminating the services of

the 2nd Party-workman. In view of the above the action of

the 1 st Party- Management in terminating the services of

Shri Bholanath Pradhan, the 2nd Party-workman cannot be

held to be legal and justified. Issue No.1 is decided against

the 1 st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but since

a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at

the Project at Digapahandi has been completed long back

where he was engaged, he cannot be given the relief of

reinstatement. However an appropriate compensation can

be awarded to him for his arbitrary and illegal retrenchment

by the 1st Party-Management without complying the

provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, besides the benefits accrued to him under

section 25- F of the aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered

that the 1st Party-Management No.2 shall pay rupees one

lakh as compensation to the 2nd Party- workman in lieu of

reinstatement in service and also wages of one month for

notice period and retrenchment compensation equivalent

to 15 days average pay for every completed year of

continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months within a period of three months from the date of

publication of award. He shall also be offered re-

employment by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 in case

any casual worker is employed by it in future in accordance

with the provisions of the Section 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

11.The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4945

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1814-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MkbjsDVj]

ekbØksoso (esUVhusUl) bZ-Vh-vkj- ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 281@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 15&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@05@1999&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 1814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 281/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Director, Microwave

( Maintenance) ETR & Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 15.07.2013.

[No. L-40012/05/1999-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. SRIVASTAVA,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 281/2001

Date of Passing Award 12th March, 2013

Between:

1. The Director, Microwave (Maintenance),

ETR, Microwave Campus, Unit - III,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 012.

2. Director, Microwave (Projects),

ETR, Plot No. 82, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 751 007,

...1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Their workman Shri Jagannath Dora,

C/o. Lalit Kumar Nayak, President, Orissa

Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha,

At. Ruguripara, Po./Dist. Bolangir,

Orissa - 767 001.

...2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

M/s. J.K. Nayak ...

For the 1st Party

Advocate.

Managements

M/s. S. Mishra ...

For the 2nd Party

Advocate.

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

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 has referred an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of the Director, Microwave (Maintenance)/

Director Microwave (Projects), Telecom and their

workman vide Letter No. L-40012/5/99-IR(DU) dated 19/

21.07.1999 in respect of the following matter:

Whether the action of the management of Project

Division/Maintenance Division, Deptt. of

Telecommunications by terminating the services of

Shri Jagannath Dora is legal & justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter

of reference has filed his statement of claim stating that the

Government of India in the Ministry of Communication

through its Department of Telecommunications runs

Microwave system of Telecommunication in the whole

country. For convenience of administration, the entire

industry is divided into Projects and Maintenance which

form an integral and inseparable activity of the Government

Department which ultimately operates in circle. In both the

works of project and maintenance departmental workers

are engaged on daily rate of wages until they or any of

them get absorbed in the regular rolls of the Management.

The Project work and so also the Maintenance work are

not confined to specific areas or locations, but reveal a

continuity of the locations of activities geographically. The

workers engaged in the Project or in the Maintenance work

get shifted from place to place as per work requirement

even orally or through telephonic message. These daily

rated workers are exploited in payment of wages, denial of

over time wages, weekly holidays, annual leave etc.

3. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged initially on

1.8.1990 and was placed under the Microwave (Projects) at

different stations and finally at Purushotampur Station

under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31.5.1997. On

completion of project work there he was assigned duties in

the Maintenance work at the same station where he

continued till 29.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and was forced to vacate the said station with

the help of police. He like other workers was not paid his

earned wages for which he moved various authorities

including the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar with the help of his trade union. After several

4946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

approaches to the Management as also to the Government

authorities he along with other nine workers were paid

their earned wages with effect from 1.6.1997 till the date of

refusal of employment. But they were denied further

employment in between 24.12.1997 to 29.12.1997 i.e. from

their respective dates of refusal of employment. The 2nd

Party-workman had put in about nine years of continuous

service under the 1st Party- Management, but he was neither

paid any retrenchment compensation or other benefits

under law nor any consideration was made for his length

of service and inter-se seniority amongst workers of the

same category. The said refusal was manifestly illegal,

arbitrary and unjustified and cannot be sustained in law.

Junior workers to him in the same category were continued

in employment. Conciliation proceedings before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

were taken up through the Trade Union in respect of all the

ten similarly situated workmen collectively which ultimately

failed and the present reference was made by the

Government on consideration of failure report submitted

by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar. The action of the 1st Party-Management in

terminating the services of the workmen is violative of

Section 25-N, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The Project work and also the Maintenance work of

the projects being a continuous activity of the 1st Party-

Management, there could be no justification to terminate

the service of the workmen. The 1st Party-Management

has also not taken into consideration the award passed in

Tr. ID Case No. 268/2001 in which 158 workmen with similar

history of employment under the 1st Party-Management

were given temporary status and are still continuing in

employment. This disparity in treatment with an attitude of

inhumanity and cruelty is highly condemnable and therefore

the workmen are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with

all service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management No.1 in its written

statement has averred that the reference is not maintainable

against the 1st Party-Management No. 1 as the 2nd Party-

workman is not the employee of the 1st Party-

Management No.1. He was never engaged in the

Microwave Maintenance Division by the Director or other

officers of the Maintenance Division. So the question of

termination of service by the Management of Microwave

Maintenance Division does not arise at all. The Microwave

Project and Maintenance are two separate and independent

wings of the Telecom Department being controlled by

two different Chief General Managers. These two units

have got no recruiting power. They get their working staff

on deputation basis from their respective territorial

Telecom Circle/District. However sometimes some

works are carried out by them through contractors or

through casual workers on contract basis. The 1st Party-

Management No.1 has never taken the 2nd Party-workman

from the 1st Party-Management No.2 i.e. the Director

Microwave Projects Division as there is no such rule or

provision in the Department to make over or take over

any working force from the Project to Maintenance or

vice versa. The Project work through-out Orissa is done

through different project divisions and after completion

of the project work the systems are handed over to the

Maintenance Division. The casual labourers engaged in

one Project Division cannot be engaged in another

Maintenance Division simultaneously and they are never

taken by the Maintenance Division after closure of the

project work. Infact the Maintenance work of different

stations are generally managed by the respective JTOs/

SDEs/DEs by existing regular staffs. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group- D vacancies.

Since 1997, the department is carrying out the

departmental work through registered contractors

whenever necessary as per the DoT order/instruction. The

said order emphasizes that due to ban order any kind of

casual engagement should not be made and departmental

works should be done through contractors. The averments

of the 2nd Party-workman regarding engagement and

payment of wages by the Maintenance division is a blatant

lie. The other averments are also denied. It is well settled

by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court that a Project worker has

no right to continue after closure of the Project. Similar is

the situation in the present case. The 158 workmen in Tr.

ID. Case No. 268/2001 are not continuing under the

Management of the Director, Microwave Maintenance

Division. They are being deployed by the contractor, M/s.

Oriental Security Service in different stations as per

contract with the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and are

paid by the Oriental Security Services. There is no

employer and employee relationship between the 1st

Party-Management No. 1 and the 2nd Party-workman and

also with 158 workmen of the said ID. Case.

5. The 1st Party-Management No.2 has stated in his

written statement that Microwave Project is an organization

of Telecom Deptt. (now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)

and is being managed by the Chief General Manager,

Telecom Project, Calcutta. To run the Telecom Project all

the employees are pulled up from the existing strength of

regular employees of the Department of Telecom. The

Director, Microwave Project, Bhubaneswar has no power

to recruit the employees of any cadre. Therefore the

question of appointment or reinstatement of the 2nd Party-

workman by the 1st Party-Management No.2 does not arise.

It has further been stated that during the continuance of

the Project work some casual workers are used to be

engaged by the site in-charge on as and when required

basis for miscellaneous work since the work of the project

is not of perennial nature. After closure of the Project work

the Maintenance Division used to maintain the systems

and stations by taking staff from Telecom Circle on

deputation. The 1st Party-Management No.1 never takes

any casual worker from the Project except on few occasions

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4947

for a short period. After closure of the Project no work is

available for the casual workers. Therefore their

engagement used to go along with the closure of the Project.

The casual workers engaged in one Project Division cannot

be engaged in the Maintenance Division. Further no casual

labour is engaged against any R.M./Group-D vacancies.

The DoT has banned the engagement of casual labourer

since 30.3.1985 and till now it is continuing. The 2nd Party-

workman was paid his wages till 31.5.1997 when the Project

at Purushotampur was completed and handed over to the

Maintenance Wing. Since no work was available after

31.5.1997 the 2nd Party-workman was not provided with

any work. But when the 2nd Party-workman created

disturbances at the site with the staff of the Maintenance

Division and did not vacate the premises he was forced to

vacate the premises with the help of the police. However

on the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) the Project Division had paid wages to the

workman till 29.12.1997, though he was not engaged at the

site from 1.6.1997 to 29.12.1997. All the alleged workmen of

the Tr. I.D. Case No. 272/01 to 281/01 were engaged in

Project Division at Aska, Purushotampur, Baliapadar and

Digapahandi. The Project work at these places has also

been completed and the stations have been handed-over

to the Director , (Maintenance) ETR, Bhubaneswar in the

year 1996/1997. Hence the question of continuance of casual

labourers of the Project in Maintenance Division does not

arise. Neither there is any requirement of casual labourers

nor any vacancy exists in the Maintenance Division. In

view of the above the relief sought for by the claimant is

devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

6. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted para-wise

reply to the averments of the lst party-Management No. 1

and 2 made in their written statement by filing rejoinder

and denied their allegations.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the lst Party-Management

by terminating the services of Shri Jagannath Dora is legal

and justified?

2. To what relief the 2nd Party-workman is entitled?

8. The 1st Party-Management has examined only one

witness namely, Shri Nabaghana Panda as M.W.-1 and relied

on eight documents marked as Ext.-A to H, while the 2nd

Party-workman has examined two witnesses, namely, Shri

Prakash Chandra Patel as W.W.-1 and Shri K. Jagannath

Dora, the workman himself as W.W.-2 and relied on several

documents marked as Ext.-1 to 29.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. From the facts brought-out in the pleadings and

evidence led by the parties it is undisputedly revealed that

the 2nd Party-workman was engaged as casual labourer

under the 1st Party-Management No.2 on 1.8.1990 and

worked at different stations and lastly at Purushatompur

Station under the Bhubaneswar Division till 31-5-1997.

During this period he worked throughout under the lst

Party-Management No. 2 and was never entrusted with

any work under the 1st Party-Management No. 1 i.e.

Director, Microwave (Maintenance) Division. The 2nd

party-workman has alleged that on completion of the

Project work at Purushotampur station he was assigned

duties in the Maintenance work at the same station where

he continued till 29.12.1997. Thereafter he was refused

employment and steps were taken to get vacated the said

station with the help of the police. The 1st Party- Management

No. 1 and 2 have denied the assignment of any duties to

the 2nd Party-workman in the Maintenance Division. There

is no Written order or documentary proof that the 2nd

Party-workman was assigned the duties in the Maintenance

work at the Purushotampur Station after 31.5.1997, but it is

an admitted fact that the 2nd Party-workman remained

located at Purushotampur station till 29.12.1997 and on the

intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party-workman and nine

other similarly situated workmen were paid wages from

1.6.1997 to 29.12.1997 or till the date they remained stationed

at their respective stations by the 1st Party-Management

No.2. Ext.-5 filed by the 2nd Party-workman shows that the

matter of 2nd Party-workman and similarly situated nine

other workmen for taking them into the Maintenance

Division was pursued at Head Office level by Deputy

General Manager (Administration) Telecom, but these

workmen were not taken by the Maintenance Division and

their requests were turned down as is revealed from Ext.-6.

Thus they were finally refused employment. Therefore it

cannot be accepted that the 2nd Party-workman and

similarly situated nine other workmen were engaged or

deputed in the Maintenance work and therefore they cannot

claim any right for employment in Maintenance Division.

10. In order to get the benefit of the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act the workman

has to prove that he has rendered continuous service for

not less than one year meaning thereby 240 days

continuous service in one year under an employer.

11. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act says

that no workman employed in any industry which has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:-

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice

in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

4948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and the period of notice has expired, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,

wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months;

12. In this case from the side of the 2nd party-

workman evidence of one Shri Prakash Chandra Patel,

who is said to be the General Secretary of the Orissa

Telecom, Microwave Mazdoor Sangh and of the workman

himself has been adduced. After filing his evidence

through affidavit the workman has failed to complete his

re-examination and face cross-examination. Thereupon

his Advocate moved a petition on 6.4.2009 to the effect

that the disputant workman is not co-operating his

conducting lawyer for further examination and cross-

examination by the Management. Therefore the evidence

from the side of the workman be closed. Acting upon

this petition my learned predecessor has closed the

evidence of the workman allowing the petition of the

Advocate for the 2nd Party-workman. Before closing

evidence of the 2nd Party-workman so many opportunities

were given to him for making his evidence complete and

also the cross examination. Therefore the affidavit

evidence filed by the 2nd Party-workman cannot be read

in evidence and thus the sole evidence of Shri Prakash

Chandra Patel, W.W.-l remains available from the side of

the 2nd Party-workman. This witness has stated in his

evidence that the 2nd Party-workman had worked in the

project for seven year or more till May, 1997 and then

in the Maintenance Division upto December, 1997. He

has further stated that the disputant workman was

working at the Project at Aska station in 1997 and when

the project was completed the same was handed over

to the Maintenance wing in June, 1997. But the workman

and others working there were asked to stay on there

to work in Maintenance till the last week of December,

1997. He has denied in his cross-examination that the

disputant has not worked for 240 days continuously

either in the Project or in the Maintenance. He has also

relied on the letter dated 2.3.2002 of the Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Microwave Project, Berhampur along

with its enclosures which is mentioned at S1. No. 27 of

the list of documents filed by the 2nd party-workman

and proved it in his evidence. But this letter has not

been marked as Ext.-27. Instead a letter dated 6.3.2000

written by the Divisional Engineer (Administration),

Telecom Projects, East Zone, Calcutta to CGM, Telecom,

Orissa Telecom Circle, Bhubaneswar has wrongly been

marked as Ext.-27. The above referred letter dated 2.3.2002

placed on record after Ext.-21depicts the name of the 2nd

party-workman at Sl. No.9 against which his date of

engagement has been shown as 4/1992 and the date of

discontinuation has been shown as 28.12.1997. Further

it has been shown against his name that he had worked

290 days during January, 1997 to December, 1997. In the

remark column it has been shown that he had been

working in each year from the date of engagement up

to December, 1996 as and when required basis. In another

list enclosed with this letter markd as Ext.-22 it has been

shown that the 2nd party-workman was engaged from

l.8.1990 and worked till 3l.5.l997 in the project and from

l.6.1997 to 29.12.l997 under S.D.E. Microwave through

ACG, but the period of working from l. 8 .1990 to

3l.5.1997 has to be verified. But the first list enclosed

with this letter clearly shows that the 2nd party-workman

had worked for 290 days from January, 1997 to December,

1997. This has not been contradicted in any evidence

adduced from the side of the 1st Party-Management.

Therefore it is to be held that the 2nd party-workman

had worked with the 1st Party-Management No.2

continuously for more than 240 days during a period of

12 calendar months preceding the date of his

disengagement and so he is entitled to the protection

of safeguard provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. In view of the above the disengagement

of the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party-Management

No. 2 amounts to retrenchment and the lst Party-

Management No. 2 has acted illegally in terminating the

services of the 2nd Party-workman. This action of the

1st Party-Management No.2 is accordingly held illegal

and unjustified. Issue no. 1 is decided against the 1st

Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

13. The 2nd Party-workman has claimed

reinstatement in service with all service benefits, but

since a period of more than 15 years has passed and

the work at the Project at Purushatompur has been

completed long. back where he was engaged, he cannot

be given the relief of reinstatement. However an

appropriate compensation can be awarded to him for his

arbitrary and illegal retrenchment by the 1st Party-

Management without complying the provisions of Section

25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, besides

the benefits accrued to him under Section 25-F of the

aforesaid Act. Therefore it is ordered that the lst Party-

Management No.2 shall pay rupees one lakh as

compensation to the 2nd Party-workman in lieu of

reinstatement in service and also wages of one month

for notice period and retrenchment compensation

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months within a period of three months from the

date of publication of award. He shall also be offered

re-employment by the lst Party-Management No. 2 in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4949

case any casual worker is employed by it in future in

accordance with the provisions of the Section 25-H of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1815-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@195@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013

S.O. 1815.—ln pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 21/99) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of State Bank of India and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 2-07-2013.

[No. L-12012/195/1998-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No.21/99

Between-

Sri Dhruv Kumar, son of Sri Khaderan Ram c/o

Sri D. S. Saxena, HIG 303, Scheme 1, Kailash Vihar, Awas

Vikas, Kalyanpur, Kanpur.

And

The General Manager,

The Benaras State Bank of India Limited, Head Office, S-

20/52, AK Varun Wing, Varanasi.

AWA RD

Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi by notification no.L-

12012/195/98-IR-BI dated 21.01.99, has referred

the following dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication.

Whether the action of the management of Benaras

State Bank Limited in terminating the services of Sri

Dhruv Kumar son of Sri Khaderan Ram with effect,

from 17.08.96, is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the said workman is entitled?

Brief facts are-

It is alleged by the claimant Sri Dhruv Kumar that

there was clear vacancy of peon at banks Chunar

Branch in District Mirzapur and he was appointed

by the branch manager as a temporary peon on

12.12.95. He was required to work for more than

the full hours of work at Chunar Branch on all the

working days. He was the only peon at Chunar

Branch. Initially he was paid Rs.30 per day which

was raised to Rs.35 per day and these payments were

paid periodically.

Further these payments are made in benami names,

which name the manager of Chunar Branch made

the applicant to write on the reverse of the voucher

whereas at the time of payment by the cashier he

used to obtain the signature of the applicant on the

vouchers. He continued to work as temporary peon

up till 17.08.96 when his services were abruptly

terminated by the bank without assigning any reason,

without payment of notice pay and retrenchment

compensation. Thus the bank committed breach of

Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

When the bank did not pay any heed to the

representations of the applicant, thereafter the

applicant raised an industrial dispute where the

conciliation· proceeding ended in failure and this

reference was made by the Government of India.

Thus the applicant worked continuously for more

than 240 days.

Therefore he has prayed that he be reinstated in

service with all consequential benefits.

Management refuted the claim of the applicant on a

number ground, inter-alia, stating that the applicant

has worked only 4 days in the month of August 1996

for which he was paid prescribed rate of wage of

Rs.35 per day paid to temporary daily wagers at that

time. Thus no question of termination of service

arises as such they have not committed any breach

of Section 25F of the Act. The claim statement has

also not been verified by the applicant and as such

is liable to be rejected. The present reference is

also bad in law.

Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the

claimant but nothing new has been alleged therein.

10.

Both the parties have filed documentary as well as

oral evidence.

4950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

Claimant has filed A/D receipt as well as speed post

receipt vide list dated 23.07.12.

12.

Claimant has also filed 9 documents vide list dated

17.08.01. These papers are paper no.19/2-12.

13.

Opposite party has also filed original documents vide

list dated 2.06.08. These documents are three

vouchers and a letter written by Dhruv Kumar himself.

14.

In the oral evidence claimant has produced himself

as w.w.l and opposite party has produced M.W.l Sri

Amar Raja, who is the senior branch manager of the

bank.

15.

I heard the arguments and perused the whole records

at length.

16.

It is a fact that opposite party was a public institution

and they have a prescribed procedure for appointing

any person on specific post. This bank was

amalgamated with bank of Bank on 19.06.02.

17.

M.W.l has specifically stated that the claimant had

worked only for four days and they have filed

voucher in original and these voucher are paper

no.31/2-4 and last voucher is dated 17.08.96 which

mentions on the front of the voucher - Misc expenses

amount paid to Sri Dhruv Kumar of Rs. 35 and there

is a signature on the back of this voucher in the

name of Sri Dhruv Kumar.

18.

Opposite party has also filed an application which is

paper no.31/5 which is signed by the claimant himself

wherein he has specifically stated that the application

which he has given on 04.12.96 is not proper whereas

he has worked only for three days.

19.

M.W.l has also stated on oath that there is no record

regarding paper no. 19/2-8 which are the photocopies

filed by the claimant and there is no signature on

paper no.19/3. This witness has been thoroughly

cross-examined. Not a single word has been asked

by the claimant on the application paper no. 31/5

which is in original and moved by the claimant wherein

the claimant had admitted that he had worked only

for 3 days in the bank. Therefore, there is no evidence.

in rebuttal to this application.

20.

In the cross W.W. 1 stated that he was forced to sign

this letter, but this point does not appear to be

satisfactory as the claimant did not put any question

to M.W.l that management has forced him to sign

this letter.

21.

Much stress has been given on paper no.19/2 -6.

The opposite party has emphasized that these are

the photocopies and initial burden was on the

claimant to prove these documents. They stated that

paper no.19/2-3 which is photocopy does not contain

any stamp nor there appears signature of any

authority. They stated that the claimant is claiming

that the cause of action has arisen on 17.08.96,

whereas there is no such date like 17.08.96 or nearby

in the letter 19/2-03. The last date in this letter is

10.09.96. It shows that th claimant was also working

on 10.09.96 if this document 19/2 is believed, but it

itself contradicts the plea of the claimant as he himself

stated that he has been removed on 17.08.96.

Moreover the dates are not legible. Moreover, as

per letter 19/4 one Sri Jagdish Singh has allegedly

written that the payments out of listed 20 payments

relating to 12.08.96, 16.08.96 and so on has not

been made by him, whereas in the letter 19/2 there

is no mention of date 12.08.96 and 16.08.96.

Moreover, when Sri Jagdish Singh retired it was the

sole responsibility of the claimant to get his

attendance procured. Opposite party in such

circumstances cannot be blamed.

22.

Therefore, there are only three vouchers along with

application of the claimant himself which is paper

no.31/5. These papers cannot be disbelieved.

23.

Hence considering the evidence adduced by both

the parties the claimant has failed to establish that

he has worked for 240 days continuously or more in

a calendar year. The evidence adduce by the

opposite party cannot be disbelieved.

24.

Therefore, it cannot be held that the services of the

claimant. were terminated in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

25.

Consequently workman is not entitled to any relief.

26.

Reference is accordingly answered against the

Workman and in favour of the management.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1816-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqacbZ iksVZ VªLV

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ&2 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@23

vkWiQ 2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&31011@03@2006&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013

S.O. 1816.—ln pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4951

23 of 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Mumbai Port Trust, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 25-07-2013.

[No. L-31011/03/2006-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT -2/23 OF 2007

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The chairman

Mumbai port Trust

Port Bhavan

Ballard Estate

Mumbai-400038.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees

Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.

APPEARANCES:

For the employer

Mr. Umesh Nabar

Advocate.

For the workmen

Mr. J. H. Sawant,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 17th June, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment by its order no.L-31011/3/2006 -IR (B-II) dated

11/06/2007 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 Mumbai

Port Trust in retiring the workman Shri P. L. Kumthekar

from the services w.e.f 01.03.2005 after attaining the

age of 58 years is just and legal? If not, to what relief

the Concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice the second

party union filed its Statement of claim at Ex-4. According

to the second party the Workman was employed by Bombay

Dock Labour Board as tally and Sorting clerk w.e.f. 02/06/

1969. He worked continuously upto 28/2/1979. The Bombay

Stevedoring Association, administrative body of BDLB

promoted the second party to the post of dock clerk and

Allotted him to join the services in M/s. D.C.Cooper & Co.

W.e.f. 1/3/1979. It is contended that in pursuance of the

Bombay Dock Workers (regulation of employment)

amendment scheme, 1981 the second party was registered

under the said scheme w.e.f. 23-1-1981. In 1994 Bombay

Dock Labour Board transferred the services of the

Workman to the first party and the first party became

employer thereof. The age of retirement of the second party

workmen was 60 years as Per the Mumbai Port Trust circular

dated 4/7/2000. The second party workman is entitled to

continue in service till completion of his 60 years of age as

they were recruited before 3/8/1972. However the first party

retired second party workman from the services w.e.f.

1/3/2005 i.e. On completion of 58 years of his age. They did

not consider the period of His service from 2-6-1969 to

28-02-1979 and did not give benefit as per the circular dt.

4-7-2000 as done in the case of other workmen placed In

similar circumstances. They ought to have allowed him to

work up to 1/7/2007 till the age of 60 years with all

consequential benefits. The First party gave discriminatory

treatment to Shri Kumthekar and subjected to losses,

hardship and inconvenience by forcibly retiring him W.e.f.

1-3-2005.

3. The action of the first party in not considering the

period of service of the second party workman from 2/6/

1969 is illegal. Retiring Shri P. L. kumthekar at the age of 58

as on 01/03/2005 is arbitrary and Illegal and unjustified.

Therefore the second party prays that the first Party be

directed to give all benefits to workman Shri P.L. Kumthekar

Till the age of his superannuation of 60 years treating as if

he is not Retired w.e.f. 1/3/2005.

4. The first party management resisted the statement

of Claim of the union vide their written statement at Ex-6.

According to The first party the contents in the statement

of claim are false, contrary and inconsistent. According to

them the contents in the statement of claim are

misconceived, malafied and not maintainable in law

4952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and Facts. They denied that second party union is deprived

of any such Right of the workman. The second party

workman is demanding Change of date of appointment

and age of retirement which is contrary to the rules of the

establishment. It would amount to injustice to similarly

placed employees and showing favour to one set of

Employees in violation of principles of natural justice.

According to the First party in the year 1979 post of dock

clerk a higher grade than the Grade in which the workmen

were employed became available in Stevedoring company.

The said grade category of docks clerk was Not on the

schedule of erstwhile BDLB. Considering the better

Prospects the workman on his own volition choose to resign

from the Services of the erstwhile BDLB and take up the

employment of docks Clerk in the higher pay scale with the

stevedoring company w.e.f. 25-01-1979 respectively. After

resigning from the erstwhile BDLS the Workman had

collected all his terminal dues thereby settling all their Claims

against erstwhile BDLB in respect of his employment from

02-06-1969. Absorption of erstwhile BDLB employees is

not covered Either by government notification or by the

subsequent settlements. Both the majority unions including

the second party union were parties To the settlement. As

the workman has resigned from the services of BDLB and

joined the services of the first party their period of service

With BDLB cannot be considered. On the other hand he

was recruited On 01-03-1994. Therefore he cannot claim

any benefit in respect of his Previous service.

5. According to the first party the criteria was adopted

by Erstwhile BDLB in its meeting dated 11-07-1986 to fix

the age of Retirement in respect of class-iii and class-iv

employees recruited on or before 1972 is 60 years and for

all future entrants the retirement age 1st 58 years. Birth

date of workman is 01-03-1947 and as he joined the Service

on 25-01-1979 he was due for retirement at the age of.

Superannuation of 58 years and was accordingly retired

on 28/02/2005. They denied that workman was subjected

to discriminatory treatment, Losses and hardship and

inconvenience. Workman was accordingly Retired lawfully

at the age of 58. He also received all the retirement Benefits.

Therefore the first party submitted that the workman is not

Entitled to any relief as prayed for. Therefore they pray

that the Reference be rejected with cost.

6. The second party filed their rejoinder at Ex-9. They

denied the contents in the written statement and reiterated

their version in the statement of claim.

7. Following are the issues for my determination. I

record My findings thereon for the reasons to follow :

Sr.

Issues

findings

No.

Whether second party is

entitled to Continues in the

service upto 28.02.2007 i.e.

Till he completes his 60

no.

Years?

What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issue no.1 :-

A short question for my determination is whether

the employee under reference is entitled to claim

retirement at 60 years of age as Fixed by the circular dated

04-02-2000 issued by central government on the subject of

Bombay dock workers (regulation of employment)

Amendment scheme 1981. As per this circular the

employees recruited On or before 03-08-1972 are entitled to

continue their service up to Completion of their 60 years of

age. According to the workman he was Recruited by the

erstwhile BDLB on 02-06-1969. According to them

Afterwards in 1979 the workman was taken over by the

first party. As Against this it is the specific case of the first

party that, the workman Has resigned his services with

BDLS and thereafter joined the services Afresh with the

first party since january 1979. According to the first Party

the workman has also received their GPF amount and other

dues From BDLB and joined the services of first party

since january 1979. Therefore he is not entitled to get the

benefit of the circular which Prescribe age of 60 years for

the workers who were recruited on or before 3-8-1972.

10.

According to the first party his services were not

continuous Service since 1969 as has been alleged. In this

respect the Ld. Adv. For The first party pointed out that,

though in the affidavit, the workman has Denied that he

has resigned from BDLB in the year 1979, he has Admitted

in his cross at ex-13 that, BDLB has paid him his legal dues

on 7-6-1979. He admitted that legal dues include pf, gratuity

and ex-gratia payments. He has admitted that those legal

dues were in Respect of his employment from 2/6/1969 to

22-1-1979, it indicates that the workman retired or resigned

from BDLB in the year 1979. He Received all the dues from

BDLB "and thereafter workman and others Have joined

the services of the first party. It shows that the workmen of

BDLB resigned from BDLB in the year 1979. They received

all their Dues such as gpf, gratuity, ex-gratia payments etc.

And thereafter They joined the services of the first party

since january 1979. In the Circumstances the Ld. Adv. For

the first party submitted that, his services Cannot be said

to have been continued since 1969 as has been Claimed. In short,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4953

according to him, as he was not recruited as on 3-8-1972 or

before that and he is not entitled to get the benefit of

Retirement age of 60 years as he joined the services of first

party in the Year 1979.

11. In this respect I would like to point out that though

workman has joined the services of the first party in 1979,

he was not recruited afresh after following the recruitment

procedure prescribed Therefor. On the other hand fact is

not disputed that the workers of the Erstwhile

BDLB were taken over by the first party in 1979 and they

Were given new and upgraded designation. In this backdrop

though the service prior to 1979 cannot be considered for

any monetary Benefit from the first party however as the

workmen of erstwhile BDLB were taken over by the first

party, their earlier service is required to be Taken into

account to get them the benefit of age of retirement as the

Workman was already in service of BDLB since prior to

1972. He Should not have been shown as a new recruit of

the year 1979. In this Backdrop I hold that, the workman

Mr. Kumthekar is entitled to get the benefit of circular dated

4-2-2000 by which workmen of the first party recruited on

or before 3-8-1972 are given benefit of retirement age upto

60 years and he ought not have been retired at the age of

58 years. In the light of this discussion i hold that, retiring

the workman at the age of 58 years was unjust

discrimination as workman was already in service since

prior to 3-8-1972. He was not recruited but was taken over

by the first party in 1979. Therefore he was required to be

treated as recruited prior to 3/8/1972. I therefore hold that

making the workman retire at the age of 58 instead of 60

years of age was unjust and improper.

12. Though I hold that retirement of workman at the

age of 58 was unjust and improper, he cannot be reinstated

at this stage as by The time he has also crossed the age of

superannuation of 60 years. In this backdrop the Ld. Adv

for the second party has claimed full back-Wages for the

period of remaining 2 years. In this respect the Ld. Adv For

the first party submitted that 'no work no wages' is the well

settled Principle of law. Therefore he submitted that the

question of awarding any back wages does not arise. After

giving conscious thought to the arguments of both the

parties, I am of the opinion that though the workman has

not worked after the age of 58 years, he was entitled to

work for two more years. He was wrongfully retired by the

first party and it was not his fault. At the same time I would

also like to consider the fact that the workman has not

worked with the first party for the Said period of two years.

In the circumstances granting full back-wages would thus

put unnecessary heavy burden on the state exchequer for

the fault of some officers. In the circumstances to meet The

end of justice i think it proper to grant compensation to the

Workman @ 20% p.m. of his last pay (total emoluments)

for the rest of The two years. Accordingly I decide this

issue no.1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed as follows:

(i)

the action of management in retiring workman Shri

P. L. Kumthekar at the age of 58 is declared unjust

and improper.

(ii)

the management is directed to pay the workman

Shri P. L. Kumthekar compensation @ 20% p.m.

Of his last pay (total emoluments) for the period

of two years (24 months).

(iii)

no order as to cost.

Date: 17.06.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1817-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&08&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@6@2013&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th Augst, 2013

S.O. 1817.—ln pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Labour

Court-2, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial dispute between the management of M/s

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workman, received

by the Central Government on 6-08-2013

[No. L-22012/6/2013-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of July, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 44/2013

4954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

The President,

(Sri R. Kashiramulu),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

H.No.3-5-247/3, Azmathpura,

Karimnagar Dist.,

Karimnagar.

.... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally,

Warangal Dist.-506169.

... Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/6/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 2-4-2013 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the ID. Act,

1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli

Area, Warangal Dist., in terminating the services of

Sri Kallepalli Posham, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-l incline,

SCCo. Ltd., Bhupalpalli Area, Warangal Distt., with

effect from 26.8.2009 is justified or not? If not, to

what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as ID.

No.44/2013 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2. The case is posted for filing Vakalat, claim

statement of Petitioner. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate

filed Vakalat for the Petitioner together with a petition i.e.,

IA No.1l8/2013 invoking Sec.36(4) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 seeking for permission to appear for the Petitioner.

Further he filed IA.No. 119/2013, seeking for advancement

of te case to 3-7-2013 and filed a memo seeking for

permission to withdraw the case. In the given

circumstances, IA No. 11 8/20 13 and IA NO.1 19/2013 are

allowed. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate is permitted to

represent the Petitioner.

3. In pursuance of the order in IA No.1 19/2013 dated

3.7.2013, this case is advanced to 3.7.2013. In the memo

filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, seeking for

permission to withdraw the petition, Petitioner pleaded that

the management was kind enough to offer employment to

him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that

he is to be permitted to withdraw the petition. Notice given

to other side. Heard both parties. Petitioner is permitted to

withdraw his case. In the result, the case is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day

of July, 2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1818-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 231@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&08&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@101@2000&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1818.—ln pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 231/

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 06-08-2013

[No. L-22012/101/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4955

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- -CUM- LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of June, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 231/2002

Between:

The General Secretary

(Sri Kamila Devaiah),

Sreerampur(Projects) Pump

Operators Association,

D.No.28-200/l, Hamaliwada,

Mancherial- 504208.

.... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur (Projects), Sreerampur

Andhra Pradesh - 504303.

.... Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. S. Verriayya & Chandraiah

Sunkara, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s. Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri &

P.A.V.V.S. Sarma, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/101/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 5.4.2002

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)( d) of

the ID. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the lockout declared by the management

of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur (Projects) Area for the period from

25.5.98 to 15.6.98 in respect of Pump Operators

of Sreerampur Area is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the pump operators are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 231/2002 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2. Petitioner union filed claim statement and

documents in support of their claim.

2. Petitioner union prayed to declare the action of

the management in declaring the lockout for the period

from 25.5.98 to 15.6.98 in respect of pump operators as

illegal and to declare that all the pump operators are

entitled for the service and salary/wages for the period

from 25.5.98 to 15.6.98 and to set aside the charges

framed against some of members of Petitioner's association

and two others alleging that they are participated in the

illegal.

3. Respondent filed counter and documents.

4. Both parties have adduced their respective

evidence. Petitioners examined WW1 and WW2 on their

behalf. Respondent examined MW1 from their side.

Petitioner union has marked documents Ex.W1 to W9 and

Respondent has marked documents Ex.M1 to M7 through

their respective chief examination affidavits.

5. Case stands posted for arguments.

6. Petitioner union representative or their counsel

called absent for several occasions and there is no

representation. Inspite of given fair opportunity Petitioner

union is not showing any interest in the proceedings.

Hence, petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmi.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by hjer and corrected by me on this the 6th day

of June, 2013.

M. VIJAY LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1 : Sri ARE Lachanna

MW1 : Sri G. Murali Sagar

WW2 : Sri DEVAIAH KUMAR

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1:

Copy of identity card issued to K. Shankaraiah

Dt. 15-10-1990

Ex. W2:

Copy of representation dt. ll.6.1998

Ex. W3:

Copy of letter dt. 4.6.1998 (English translation

to Ex.W3A)

Ex. W3A: Copy of notice by Rl to pump operators

dt.4.6.1998

Ex. W4:

Copy of order in WPMP NO.250 19/98 in WP

No.20894/98

Ex. W5:

Copy of letter of the Rl dt.3.9.98

Ex. W6:

Copy of letter dt.30.1 0.1998

Ex. W7:

Copy of newspaper cutting dt.10.6.98 of Vartha

daily showing the effect of lock out on the

essential services

Ex. W8:

Copy of charge sheet to WWl dt.1. 7.98

Ex. W9:

Copy of charge sheet to WW2 dt.23.6.98

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Copy of circular dt.21.3 .98 declaring coal

industry as public utility service

Ex. M2:

Copy of strike notice dt.18.4.98

Ex. M3:

Representation of SAAJAC(union) dt.7.5.98

Ex. M4:

Supplementary demands by Petitioner union

dt.8.5.98

4956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M5:

Copy of interim order in WP MP No.25019/98 in

WP No.20894/98 dt.6.10.98

Ex. M6:

Reply to the Petitioner union dt.30.1 0.98

Ex. M7:

Copy of representation made by the Petitioner

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1819-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&08&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1819.—ln pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad

(Ref. No. 55/2007) now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to

the management of M/s SCCL, and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 06-08-2013

[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJA Y A LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of June, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 55/2007

Between:

Sri Ratnam Laxmaiah, S/o Ratnam Posham,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G-7,

Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

.... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandmarri,

Adilabad District..

The Colliery Manager/Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kasipeta Mines, Mandamarri,

Adilabad District.

... Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Ratnam

Laxmaiah, under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 55/2007 and

notices were issued to the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his

dismissal from service vide order No. P/MM/7/2/00/3904

dated 9.9.2000 by the Respondent without following the

procedure, seeking for reinstatement with all consequential

benefits. Respondents have filed counter statement as well

as documents in support of their contentions.

3. When the matter came up for arguments on the

point of validity of domestic enquiry Learned Counsel for

the Petitioner filed memo conceding domestic enquiry as

valid on 23.7.2010. Case stands posted for arguments and

Respondents submitted their arguments. At this stage, the

matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable

settlement.

4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo

seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that

the management was kind enough to offer employment to

him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that

he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given

circumstances, the matter has been called to the regular file

from Lok Adalath.

5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.

6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 17th

day of June, 2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4957

ubZ fnYyh] 06 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1820-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06&08&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj(lh&II)º

ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad

(Ref. No. 17/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 6-8-2013.

[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AT HYDERABAD

Present :

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 25th day of June, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 17/2008

Between :

Sri Sadiq Miya,

S/o Jaffer Miya,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No. G 7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

. . . Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur (P) area, Srirampur,

Adilabad District and another.

. . . Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitoner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent :

Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao,

Advocate

AWARD

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Sadiq

Miya, under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 17/2008 and

notices were issued to the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his

dismissal from service vide order No. SRP/PER/13-008/1288

dated 8-4-2003 by the Respondent without following the

procedure and seeking for resinstatement with all

consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter

statement as well as documents in support of their cont

entions. On filing of memo conceding domestic enquiry

as valid by the Petitioner, departmental enquiry held legal

and valid on 23-4-2010.

3. Case stood posted for arguments under Sec.

11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At this stage,

the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable

settlement.

4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo

seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that

the management was kind enough to offer employment to

him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that

he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given circum-

stances, and in view of the orders in IA No. 101/2003 the

matter has been called to the regular file from Lok Adalath.

5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.

Petitioner is permitted withdraw his case.

6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and 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

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1821-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

4958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06&08&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@130@2012&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 82/2012

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieies Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 06-08-2013.

[No. L-22012/130/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 25th day of June, 2013

Industrial Dispute No. 82/2012

Between :

The President (Sri R. Kashiramulu) ,

(Rep. of Shri Kalvala Sadaiah),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

H. No. 3-5-247/3,

Azmathpura, Karimnagar.

. . . .Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad district-504 303.

. . . .Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/130/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 26-10-

2012 referred the following dispute under section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal

between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri

Area, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of

Sri Kalvala Sadaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, RK-1A incline,

SCCL, Mandamarri Area with effect from 27-10-2008

is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is

entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 82/

2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands for appearance of Petitioner and

filing of claim statement to 5-8-2013. Petitioner filed IA No.

100/2013 on 25-6-2013 seeking for advancement of the case

to 25-6-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to

withdraw the case.

3. In pursuance of the order in IA No. 100/2013

dated 25-6-2013, this case is advanced to 25-6-2013. In the

memo filed by the Petitioner seeking for permission to

withdraw the case, Petitioner pleaded that the management

was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to

withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted

to withdraw the petition.

4. Notice given to Respondent. Heard both parties.

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.

5. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly.

Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowari, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and 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

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1822-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4959

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06&08&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@316@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2006)

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 06-08-2013.

[ No. L-22012/316/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of July, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 65/2006

Between :

The General Secretary

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Council,

H. No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar

Markandeya Colony,

Godavarikhani-505209.

. . . .Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri-504 231.

. . . .Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by

its order No. L-22012/316/2005-IR (CM-II) dated

9-10-2006 referred the following dispute between the

management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and

their workman under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terminating

the services of Sri Naresh Kumar Kori w.e.f. 10-10-

2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

2. The matter was closed vide a nil award on

18-8-2008. In view of IA No. 35/2008, this case has been

reopened and restored to its original number. Petitioner

filed claim statement and Respondent filed counter

statement. The case stands posted to 15-7-2013 for filing

documents by the Respondent.

3. While things stood so, Petitioner’s counsel filed

I.A. No. 120/2013, seeking for advancement of the case to

3-7-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to

withdraw the case. IA No. 120/2013 is allowed and the case

is advanced to 3-7-2013.

4. In the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner, seeking for permission to withdraw the petition,

Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough

to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the

present dispute and that he is to be permitted to withdraw

the petition.

5. Notice given to other side. Heard both parties.

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.

6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowari, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and pronounced 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

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1823-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

4960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2009) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06&08&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/33/2009)

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 07-08-2013.

[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Award U/S. 21 of the L.S.A. Act 1987 &

Amendment Act, 1994 Saturday, The 22nd Day

of June, 2013

PRESENT :

1. Sri G. Venkata Krishnaiah,

Judicial Officer

B.A., B.L.,— Chairman,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-Cum-VI Addl.

District & Sessions Judge,

Godavarikhani.

2. Sri. D. Anjaiah,

-Member

(Advocate)

3. Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,

Member

(Social Worker)

I. D. No. 33 of 2009

On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-

cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Godavarikhani.

Between :-

MD. Gouse, Ex. Badli Filler, E.C. No. 0903193,

S/o Md. China Ankoos, Aged about 35 years,

Qr. ST2-317, Bus Stand Colony,

PO. Godavarikhani-505 209,

Mandal Ramagundam,

Dist. Karimnagar (A. P.)

. . . . Petitioner

AND

1. The Superintendent of Mines,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. SRP-1 Incline,

PO. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A. P.)

2. The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Srirampur Area,

PO. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A. P.),

3. The Chairman, & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

P. O. : Kothagudem,

District : Khammam (A. P.),

. . .Respondents.

CLAIM

This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming

on 22-06-2013 for settlement before the LOK ADALAT

in the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his

Counsel Sri. B. Amarender Rao, and the Authorized

Officer/Law Officer of the Respondent/Management Sri.

Mohd. Abbas, Addl. General Manager (Personnel), SRP

Area.

After hearing and after considering the

representation of both parties and in view of the

settlement arrived between the parties and on the basis

of the said settlement, passed the following :—

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A.

ACT, 1987

The Petitioner having agreed to the detailed

proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1(a)

to (e) and 2, the contents of which are read over

and explained to him in his language and agreed by

him by singning the proposal sheet (enclosed to the

Award), the Respondent is directed to take him back

to duty forthwith as BADLI COAL FILLER.

2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties

and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21 (2) of

the LSA Act, 1987.

3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing

the respondent company to implement the award within

30 days from the date of publication of this award by the

Government of India.

4. In agreement of the above, the parties/cousel have

affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the

presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.

Petitioner/Workman

Authorised Officer for the

Respondent

Company

(MOHD. ABBAC)

Counsel for the Petitioner

Presiding Officer of Lok

Adalat

Sri. D. Anjaiah, Advocate,

Lok Adalat Member.

Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,

Member (Social Worker)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4961

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

I.D. No. 33 of 2009

PROPOSALS OF THE MANAGEMENT :

In order to have speedy and effective settlement of

the cases before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Management of

Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth

the following proposals :

Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before

this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the

following conditions :

a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have put

in at least 100 musters per year in any of the two

years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal.

b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment as

Badli Coal Filler without back wages and without

continuity of services subject to medical fitness

by Colliery Medical Officer.

c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment will

be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal filling

where underground coal filling is available and need

not be the same place where the petitioner- workman

was last employed.

d. The petitioner-workman will be on observation for

one year and has to put in minimum mandatory 20

musters every month, and reviewed once in every

3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event of any

short fall of Attendance during the 3 months period

his services will be terminated automatically without

any further notice and enquiry.

e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine

accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is

taken at Company Hospitals and remains in

company sick rolls, will be deemed as attendance

during the trial period.

2. All other usual terms and conditions of

appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work,

days of rest, holidays etc., for appointment afresh.

The Hon’ble Members may kindly take note of the

above and pass consent award Section 21 of LSA

Act, 1987

AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR

THE RESPONDENT COMPANY

(MOHD. ABBAS)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1824-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2009) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&8&2013 dks izkIr gqvk

Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj(lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/32/2009)

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 7-8-2013.

[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Award U/s. 21 of the L.S.A. Act 1987 & Amendment Act,

1994 Saturday, the 22nd Day of June, 2013

Present :

1. Sri G. Venka ta Krishnaiah,

Judicial Officer

B.A., B.L.,— Chairman,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-Cum-VI Addl.

District & Sessions Judge,

Godavarikhani.

2. Sri. D. Anjaiah,

-Member

(Advocate)

3. Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,

Member

(Social Worker)

I.D. No. 32 of 2009

On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-

cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Godavarikhani.

4962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between :

Muthe Sathaiah, Ex. Coal Filler, E.C. No. 2074893,

S/o Mondaiah, Aged about 34 years,

R/o. Qr. No. ST 2-370, Bus Stand Colony,

PO. Godavarikhani-505 209,

Dist. Karimnagar (A. P.)

. . . . Petitioner

AND

1. The Dy. General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., MK-4 Incline,

Mandamarri Area, PO. Mandamarri,

Dist. Adilabad (A. P.)

2. The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, PO. Mandamarri,

Dist. Adilabad (A. P.),

The Chairman, & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

P. O. : Kothagudem,

District : Khammam (A. P.),

. . .Respondents

CLAIM

This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming

on 22-06-2013 for settlement before the LOK ADALAT in

the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his Counsel

Sri. B. Amarender Rao, and the Authorized Officer/Law

Officer of the Respondent/Management Sri. V. Muralidhar

Yadav, Dy. General Manager (Personnel), Mandamarri Area.

After hearing and after considering the represen-

tation of both parties and in view of the settlement

arrived between the parties and on the basis of the

said settlement, passed the following :—

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A.

ACT, 1987

The Petitioner having agreed to the detailed

proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1(a) to (e)

and 2, the contents of which are read over and explained

to him in his language and agreed by him by singning the

proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award), the Respondent is

directed to take him back to duty forthwith as Badli Coal

Filler.

2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties

and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21 (2) of the

LSA Act, 1987.

3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing

the respondent company to implement the award within

30 days from the date of publication of this award by the

Government of India.

4. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel

have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the

presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.

-Sd-

Petitioner/Workman

Authorised Officer for the

Respondent Company

(M. M. MUJAHID)

-Sd-

Counsel for the Petitioner

Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat

-Sd-

Sri. D. Anjaiah, Advocate, Lok Adalat Member.

-Sd-

Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy, Member (Social

Worker)

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

I. D. No. 32 of 2009

PROPOSALS OF THE MANAGEMENT :

In order to have speedy and effective settlement of

the cases before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Management of

Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth

the following proposals :

Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before

this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the

following conditions :

a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have put

in at least 100 musters per year in any of the two

years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal.

b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment as

Badli Coal Filler without back wages and without

continuity of services subject to medical fitness by

Colliery Medical Officer.

c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment will

be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal filling

where underground coal filling is available and need

not be the same place where the petitioner- workman

was last employed.

d. The petitioner-workman will be on observation for

one year and has to put in minimum mandatory 20

musters every month, and reviewed once in every

3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event of any

short fall of Attendance during the 3 months period

his services will be terminated automatically without

any further notice and enquiry.

e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine

accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is

taken at Company Hospitals and remains in

company sick rolls, will be deemed as attendance

during the trial period.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4963

2. All other usual terms and conditions of

appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work,

days of rest, holidays etc., for appointment afresh.

The Hon’ble Members may kindly take note of the

above and pass consent award Section 21 of LSA

Act, 1987.

1. -Sd-

AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR

THE RESPONDENT COMPANY

(M. M. MUJAHID)

2. -Sd-

3. -Sd-

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1825-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kUuh xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

11@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&8&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj(lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the the Award of the

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/

ID/11/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07-08-2013.

[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Award U/S. 21 of the L.S.A. Act 1987 & Amendment Act,

1994 Saturday, the 22nd Day of June, 2013

Present :-

1. Sri G. Venka ta Krishnaiah,

...Judicial Officer

B.A., B.L.,— Chairman,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-Cum-VI Addl.

District & Sessions Judge,

Godavarikhani.

2. Sri. D. Anjaiah,

-Member

(Advocate)

3. Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,

-Member

(Social Worker)

I.D. No. 11 of 2007

On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-cum-

VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani.

Between :-

Chilumula Posham, Ex. Coal Filler, E.C. No. 2563371,

Aged about 43 years, S/o. Balaraju.

R/o. Pulimadu Village,

Mandamarri Mandal,

Dist. Adilabad (A. P.)

. . . . Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Srirampur Area,

PO. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A. P.)

2. The Colliery Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

RK-6 Incline, Srirampur Area, Dist. Adilabad (A.P.),

The Chairman, & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

P. O. : Kothagudem,

District : Khammam (A. P.),

. . .Respondents.

CLAIM

This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming

on 22-06-2013 for settlement before the LOK ADALAT in

the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his Counsel

Sri. V. Muralidhar Yadav, and the Authorized Officer/Law

Officer of the Respondent/Management Sri Mohd. Abbas,

Addl. General Manager (Personnel), SRP Area.

After hearing and after considering the represen-

tation of both parties and in view of the settlement

arrived between the parties and on the basis of the

said settlement, passed the following :—

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A.

ACT, 1987

The Petitioner having agreed to the detailed

proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1(a) to (e)

and 2, the contents of which are read over and explained

to him in his language and agreed by him by singning the

proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award), the Respondent is

directed to take him back to duty forthwith as BADLI COAL

FILLER.

4964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties

and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21 (2) of the

LSA Act, 1987.

3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing

the respondent company to implement the award within

30 days from the date of publication of this award by the

Government of India.

4. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel

have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the

presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.

Sd/-

Petitioner/Workman

Authorised Officer forthe

(LTI of Ch. Posham)

Respondent Company

(MOHD. ABBAS)

-Sd-

Counsel For The

Presiding Officer of Lok

Petitioner

Adalat

Sd/-

Sri D. Anjaiah, Advocate,

Lok Adalat Member.

Sd/-

Sri Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,

Member (Social Worker)

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

I.D. No. 11 of 2007

PROPOSALS OF THE MANAGEMENT :

In order to have speedy and effective settlement of

the cases before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Management of

Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth

the following proposals :

Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before

this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the

following conditions :

a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have put

in at least 100 musters per year in any of the two

years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal.

b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment as

Badli Coal Filler without back wages and without

continuity of services subject to medical fitness by

Colliery Medical Officer.

c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment will

be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal filling

where underground coal filling is available and need

not be the same place where the petitioner- workman

was last employed.

d. The petitioner-workman will be on observation for

one year and has to put in minimum mandatory 20

musters every month, and reviewed once in every

3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event of any

short fall of Attendance during the 3 months period

his services will be terminated automatically

without any further notice and enquiry.

e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine

accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is

taken at Company Hospitals and remains in

company sick rolls, will be deemed as attendance

during the trial period.

2. All other usual terms and conditions of

appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work,

days of rest, holidays etc., for appointment afresh.

The Hon’ble Members may kindly take note of the

above and pass consent award Section 21 of LSA

Act, 1987.

Sd/-

1. Sd/-

AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR

THE RESPONDENT COMPANY

(MOHD. ABBAS)

2. Sd/-

3. Sd/-

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 1826-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh

lh ,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2008) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06&08&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZ vkj(lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013

S.O. 1826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/37/2008)

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06-08-2013.

[ No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 24] 2013@Hkkæ 2] 1935

4965

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

Award u/s 21 of the L.S.A. Act, 1987 & Amendment Act, 1994

Saturday, the 22nd day of June, 2013

Present :

1. Sri G. Venka ta Krishnaiah,

—Judicial Officer

B.A., B.L., Chairman,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-Cum-VI Addl.

District & Sessions Judge,

Godavarikhani.

2. Sri. D. Anjaiah,

—Member

—(Advocate)

3. Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,

—Member

(Social Worker)

I.D. No. 37 of 2008

On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-cum-

VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani.

Between :-

Rengunta Shankar, Ex. Badli Filler, E.C. No. 2319829,

S/o Venkati, Aged about 41 years,

Qr. ST 2-317, Bus Stand Colony,

PO. Godavarikhani-505 209

Dist. Karimnagar (A. P.)

. . . . Petitioner

AND

1. The Colliery Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., RK-NT Incline,

P.O. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A. P.)

2. The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Srirampur Area,

P.O. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A. P.)

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

P.O. : Kothagudem,

District : Khammam (A.P.).

. . .Respondents

CLAIM

This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming

on 22-06-2013 for settlement before the LOK ADALAT in

the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his Counsel

Sri. B. Amarender Rao, and the Authorized Officer/Law

Officer of the Respondent/Management Sri. Mohd. Abbas,

Addl. General Manager (Personnel), SRP Area.

Aft er hearing and after considering the represen-

tation of both parties and in view of the settlement

arrived between the parties and on the basis of the

said settlement, passed the following :—

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A.

ACT, 1987

The Petitioner having agreed to the detailed

proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1(a)

to (e) and 2, the contents of which are read over and

explained to him in his language and agreed by him

by signing the proposal sheet (enclosed to the

Award), the Respondent is directed to take him back

to duty forthwith as Badli Coal Filler.

2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties

and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21 (2) of the

LSA Act, 1987.

3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing

the respondent company to implement the award within 30

days from the date of publication of this award by the

Government of India.

4. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel

have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the

presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.

Sd/-

Petitioner/Workman

Authorised Officer for the

Respondent Company

(Mohd. ABBAS)

Sd/-

Counsel for the Petitioner

Sd/-

Presiding Officer of Lok

Adalat

Sd/-

Sri. D. Anjaiah, Advocate,

Lok Adalat Member.

Sd/-

Sri. Dr. G. BhagavanReddy,

Member (Social Worker)

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

I.D. No. 37 of 2008

Proposals of the Management :

In order to have speedy and effective settlement of

the cases before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Management of

Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth

the following proposals :

1. Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before

this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the

following conditions :

a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have put

in at least 100 musters per year in any of the two

years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal.

4966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 24, 2013/BHADRA 2, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment as

Badli Coal Filler without back wages and without

continuity of services subject to medical fitness

by Colliery Medical Officer.

c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment will

be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal filling

where underground coal filling is available and need

not be the same place where the petitioner- workman

was last employed.

d. The petitioner-workman will be on observation for

one year and has to put in minimum mandatory 20

musters every month, and reviewed once in every

3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event of any

short fall of Attendance during the 3 months period

his services will be terminated automatically without

any further notice and enquiry.

e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine

accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is

taken at Company Hospitals and remains in

company sick rolls, will be deemed as attendance

during the trial period.

2. All other usual terms and conditions of

appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work,

days of rest, holidays etc., for appointment afresh.

The Hon’ble Members may kindly take note of the

above and pass consent award Section 21 of LSA

Act, 1987.

Sd/-

AUTHORISED OFFICER

FOR THE RESPONDENT

COMPANY

(MOHD. ABBAS)

Sd/-

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.