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

¼dkfeZd ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1932.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 lgifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, mÙkj izns'k ljdkj 'kklu ds x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&12

varxZr vf/klwpuk la[;k 1680@6&ih;w&12&13&6¼24½Mh@13]

y[kuÅ] fnukad 25 tqykbZ] 2013 }kjk iznÙk lgefr ls rhFk±dj egkohj

;wfuoflZVh] ikdcM+k] eqjknkckn esa Ms. uhjt HkMkuk dh gR;k ds

laca/k esa Fkkuk ikdcM+k] ftyk eqjknkckn] mÙkj izns'k esa Hkkjrh; naM

lafgrk 1860 dh /kkjk 302 ds varxZr vijk/k la[;k 206@2013 rFkk

mijksDr vijk/k ls tqM+s ;k lEcfU/kr iz;kl] mdlkuk vkSj "kM;a=

djus vkSj bl pyu esa vU; fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr fdlh

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

LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/kdkfjrk dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ

mÙkj izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA

[lañ 228@55@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 1932.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Uttar Pradesh, Grih (Police) Anubhag-12,

Lucknow vide Notification No. 1680(2)/6-Pu-12-13-6(24)D/

13 dated 25th July, 2013, hereby extends the powers and

Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh

for investigation of case Crime No. 206/2013 under section

302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

registered at Police Station Pak Badha District Moradabad,

Uttar Pradesh relating to murder of Miss Neeraj Bhadhana

at Tirthankar Mahaveer University Pak Badha, Moradabad

and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in

connection with the above mentioned offence and any

other offence or offences committed in the course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/55/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 37]

ubZ fnYyh, flrEcj 8—flrEcj 14] 2013] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 17—Hkkæ 23] 1935

No. 37]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 8—SEPTEMBER 14, 2013, SATURDAY/BHADRA 17—BHADRA 23, 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)

3781 GI/2013

(5119)

5120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1933.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 25½

dh /kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, e/; izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] ea=ky;]

oYyHk Hkou] HkksIkky dh fnukad 22 twu] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k

,Q&12&31@2013@ch&1 ¼nks½ }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Loñ Jh v#.k

frokjh }kjk fnukad 02-10-2012 dks vkRegR;k fd;s tkus ls lacaf/kr

iqfyl Fkkuk ckx lsofu;k] ftyk Hkksiky esa iathd`r Hkkjrh; naM

lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 45½ dh /kkjk 302] 120ch]

34 ds varxZr vijk/k Øekad 493@2011 dk rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/kksa

ds laca/k esa ;k mlls lac) iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM;a= rFkk mlh

laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd;s x;s ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr vU; vijkè

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

ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ e/; izns'k

jkT; ij djrh gSA

[la- 228@48@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013

S.O. 1933.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department,

Mantralaya, Bhopal vide Notification No. F. 12-31/2013/B-

1(Two) dated 22nd June, 2013, hereby extends the powers

and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh

for investigation of case Crime No. 493/2011 under section

34, 120-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.

45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Bagh Sewaniya,

District Bhopal relating to suicide committed by late Arun

Tiwari on 02-10-2011 and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above

mentioned offences and any other offence or offences

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising

out of the same facts.

[No. 228/48/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

t;iqj] 6 flrEcj] 2013

lañ 08@2013&14

dkñvkñ 1934.—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk 43oka½ dh /kkjk

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

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

2012&13 ,oa vkxs ds fy;s dfFkr /kkjk ds mís'; ls ^^Lokeh ';keykuUn

f'k{kk lfefr] t;iqj ¼LFkkbZ [kkrk la[;k&AAHTJ8654F) dks Lohd`fr

nsrs gSaA

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

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

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

[Øekad% eqvkvk@vvkvk@¼eqñ½@t;ñ@10¼23lh½

(vi) @13&14@3306]

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

Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Jaipur, the 6th September, 2013

No. 8/2013-14

S.O. 1934.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

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

hereby approves "Swami Shayamlanand Shiksha Samiti"

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

provided that the society conforms to and complies with

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

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

Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/3306]

ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1935.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk

izfrHkwfrdj.k ,oa iquxZBu vkSj izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vf/kfu;e]

2002 ¼2002 dk 54½ dh /kkjk 2 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼M½ ds

mi&[k.M (iv) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ,rn~}kjk]

jkti= ¼vlk/kkj.k½ vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ 1282¼v½ fnukad

10 uoEcj] 2003 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS%—

mDr vf/klwpuk esa Øe la[;k 18 vkSj blls lacaf/kr izfof"V;ksa

ds fy, fuEufyf[kr dks izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] uker% %—

^^,y ,aM Vh gkmflax Qkbusal fyfeVsM**

[Qkñ lañ 22@08@2012&MhvkjVh ¼fjdojh½]

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd ¼fjdojh½

ikn fVIi.kh%µ10 uoEcj] 2003 dks Hkkjr ds jkti=

¼vlk/kkj.k½ Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) esa dkñvkñ 1282 ¼v½ ds

tfj, izdkf'kr eq[; vf/klwpuk( ftlesa ckn esa 16 twu] 2012 ds

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) esa dkñvkñ 2359 ds

tfj, la'kks/ku fd;k x;kA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5121

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013

S.O. 1935.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-clause (iv) of clause (m) of sub-section (1) of section 2

of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002),

the Central Government hereby amends the Notification

No. S.O. 1282 (E) dated 10th November, 2003 as under:

In the said notification, for serial number 18 and the

entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted,

namely:-

"L&T Housing Finance Limited."

[F.No. 22/08/2012-DRT (Recovery)]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director (Recovery)

Footnote:—Principal Notification published vide S.O.

1282(E) dated 10th November, 2003 in the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii);

subsequently amended vide S.O. 2359 dated 16th June,

2012 in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3,

Sub-section (ii).

;qok dk;ZØe ,oa [ksy ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1936.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&

fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds

Lok;Rr'kklh dk;kZy; y{ehckbZ jk"Vªh; 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk laLFkku]

Xokfy;j ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ bZ&11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]

Fkaxysefy;u] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013

S.O. 1936.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10

of Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)

Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Laksmibai National Institute of Physical Education,

Gwalior an autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs

& Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

[No.E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

THENGLEMLIAN, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1937.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds

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

fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds

Lok;Rr'kklh dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; [ksy izkf/kdj.k izf'k{k.k dsanz] iqMqpsjh

ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ 11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]

Fkaxysefy;u] mi lfpo

New Delhi, 5th September, 2013

S.O. 1937.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10

of Official Language (use of official purpose of the Union)

Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Sports

Authority of India Training Centre, Puduchari, an

autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,

whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

THANGLEMLIAN, Dy. Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1938.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s g®%—

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

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

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 16099%2013 fo|qrh; iz;kstukFkZ flFksafVd dkcZfud bLVj—

—

26-08-2013

miLdj esa VªkalQkeZj bLVj ds vuqj{k.k laca/kh ekxZnf'kZdk

5122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 16085%2013 feujy rsy&Hkfjr fo|qrh; miLdj—

—

26-08-2013

fo|qrh; miLdj ij QSDVjh ijh{k.kksa ds fy, ?kqfyr xSl

fo'ys"k.k ¼Mhñthñ,ñ½ ds vuqiz;ksx

vkbZ ,l 16086%2013 fo|qrjks/kh nzo—pkydrk vkSj

—

26-08-2013

/kkfjrk ds ekiu }kjk ijkfo|qr folaj.k dkjd dks Kkr

djukµijh{k.k fof/k

vkbZ ,l 16084%2013 feujy fo|qrjks/kh rsy—cgqr de rkieku

—

26-08-2013

ij dkbuseSfVd ';kurk Kkr djuk

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

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

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUriqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè g®A

[lanHkZ bZVh 03@Vh&37] Vh&39] Vh&41] Vh&42]

vkjñ lhñ eSF;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFIARS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2013

S.O. 1938.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standard 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. and Year of the

No. and Year of the Indian

Date of

No.

Indian Standards

Standards, if any, Superseded

Established

by the New Indian Standard

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

IS 16099:2013 Synthetic organic esters for electrical

—

26.08.2013

purposes — Guide for maintenance of transformer

esters in equipment

IS 16085:2013 Mineral oil-filled electrical equipment—

—

26.08.2013

Application of dissolved gas analysis (DGA) to factory

tests on electrical in equipment

IS 16086:2013 Insulating liquids — Determination of

—

26.08.2013

the dielectric dissipation factor by measurement of the

conductance and capacitance — Test method

IS 16084:2013 Mineral insulating oils — Determination

—

26.08.2013

of kinematic viscosity at very low temperatures

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. ET 03/T-37, T-39, T-41, T-42]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electro-technical)

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5123

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1939.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g® os LFkkfir gks x, g®A

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

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

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 7784¼Hkkx 1½% 2013

vkbZ ,l 7784 ¼Hkkx 1½

31-07-2013

vkj ikj ty fudk; dk;ks± ds

1993

fMtkbZu — jhfr lafgrk Hkkx 1

lkekU; y{k.k ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

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

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUr iqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV }kjk

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 13@Vh&20]

tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013

S.O. 1939.—In pursunace 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:

Sl.

Title and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the

Date of

No.

Standards Established

Indian Standards, if

Establishment

any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 7784 (Part 1):2013 Design of cross

IS 7784 (Part 1): 1993

31st July 2013

drainage works—Code of practice: Part 1

General features (second revision)

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

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

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

Thiruvananthapuram Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. WRD 13/T-20]

J. C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Deptt. of Water Resources)

ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1940.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g®] dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, g®%

5124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe

ykbZlsal uañ

Lohd`r djus dh ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqñ

o"kZ

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

'kh"kZd

ekud lañ

5675282

03@04@2013

esllZ ekW paMh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

csVuksVh cl LV®M ds lehi]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

iksLV csVuksVh]

,oa eqgjkadu—fof'kf"V

ftyk&e;wjHkat]

vksfM'kk&757025

5675585

09@04@2013

esllZ lq/kkdj ih oh lh izksMDV~l izkñ fyñ

ikuh dh vkiwfrZ gsrq mPp

4984

1995

IykWV uañ 3081&2306] 2849] 50]52

?kuRo ikWyhbFkkbyhu ikbi

57] 58] 528@231] ihrkryh ¼V½]

ftyk&xatke] vksfM'kk

5676183

09@04@2013

esllZ d.kd Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

okMZ uañ 09] esu jksM] cjfcy]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk&fd;ksa>kj]

,oa eqgjkadu — fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&758035

5676284

09@04@2013

esllZ uojax TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

/keZ'kkyk ysu] xSrh jksM]

vkHkkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk&lacyiqj]

,oa eqgjkadu — fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&768001

5676385

09@04@2013

esllZ bZ'oj Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

eksrhxat ckt+kj] ckys'oj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vksfM'kk&756003

,oa eqgjkadu — fof'kf"V

5676486

09@04@2013

esllZ jk/kkd`".kk Tosyjh oDlZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

iksLV&ihñ,lñ&cSflaxk]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk e;wjHkat] vksfM'kk

,oa eqgjkadu fof'kf"V

5676991

10@04@2013

esllZ vk/kqfud esVkfyDl fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

xzke&pknzhgfjgjiqj] iksLV&dqvkjeqaMk]

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

jkmjdsyk

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj —

ftyk&lqanjx<+]

fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&770039

5676688

11@04@2013

esllZ nqxkZ Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

cfu;kiVh] ckyh'kkgh ds lehi]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk&iqjh]

,oa eqgjkadu — fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk

5676789

11@04@2013

esllZ larks"k Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

MksykeqaMbZ] gksfYMax uañ 634]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

iksLV&cDlhcktkj] ihñ,lñ&

,oa eqgjkadu& fof'kf"V

iqjh?kkViqjh?kkV]

ftyk&dVd]

vksfM'kk&753001

5677690

12@04@2013

esllZ foekd IykfLVDl

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

4985

2000

20] x.ks'ojiqj baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

vIykfLVd`r ihohlh ikbi

tkuqxat] ftyk&ckys'oj]

— fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&756019

5680073

23@04@2013

esllZ Hkw"k.k ikWoj ,.M LVhy fyñ

;kaf=d vkSj lkekU;

3601

2006

xzke&FksydksyksbZ] iksLV&ykiaxk]

bathfu;fjax iz;kstuksa ds

rglhy&jsaxkyh]

fy, bLikr ds ikbZi —

ftyk&lacyiqj]

fof'kf"V

vksfMlk&768232

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5125

5679088

30@04@2013

esllZ Jh jk/kk je.k ,ykSbt fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

xzke&iksLV& >kjcsMk] ihñ,lñ&dqrjk]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

jktxaxkiqj]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr baxV]

ftyk&laqnjx<+]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc&

vksfM'kk&770070

fof'k"V

5679290

01@05@2013

esllZ gjpaMh fMªaDl

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdst

14543

2004

uhjkdkjiqj] iksLV&uhjkdkjiqj]

can izkd`frd fefujy ty ds

tafd;k] ftyk&[kqnkZ]

vykok½ & fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&752019

5679391

02@05@2013

esllZ jf'e fMªaDl izkñfyñ

iSdstcan is; ty ¼isdstcan

14543

2004

69] Hkxckuiqj baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

izkd`frd fefujy ty ds

Hkqous'oj]

vykok½ & fof'kf"V

ftyk&[kqnkZ]

vksfM'kk&751019

5680477

09@05@2013

esllZ eukst ,Dok fMªaDl

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan

14543

2004

jktuxqaMk] ftyk&dksjkiqV]

izkd`frd fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk&764036

vykok½ & fof'kf"V

5680679

09@05@2013

esllZ ljLorh vyadkj]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

txUukFkiqj] iksLV&clafr;k]

vkHkw"k.k&f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ihñ,lñ]&ianhiMk]

,oa eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

ftyk&fd;ksa>kj] vksfM'kk

5681479

17@05@2013

esllZ dud eafnj TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

esu jksM] ihñ,lñ&ihñ,lñ jksM] jkmjdsyk]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk&lqanjx<+]

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&769001

5681580

17@05@2013

esllZ vyadkj TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

gksfYMax uañ 35] okMZ uañ 5]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kyidkjh 'kq)rk

uhepkSjh] pkanhfu pkSd] dVd]

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&753002

5681681

17@05@2013

esllZ lsukirh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

esu jksM] jgek]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk&txrflagiqj]

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&754140

5681883

17@05@2013

esllZ ,ikjh lnkf'ko izkñfyñ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

IykWV uañ 864] [kkrk lañ 181]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

;wfuV&10] flVh uañ 05]

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

HkkLdjxat]

ftyk&ckys'oj]

vksfM'kk&756001

5681984

17@05@2013

esllZ Mhñihñ ,.M lal TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

gksfYMax uañ 44 ,oa 45] okMZ uañ 5]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

uhepkSjh] ftyk&dVd]

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk&753002

5682077

17@05@2013

esllZ fcthizqf"V vyadkj

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

IykWV uañ 291@675] iksLV&][kyh'kkgh]

vkHkw"k.k&f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ihñ,lñ&[kankiMk]

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

ftyk&u;kx<+]

Øe

ykbZlsal uañ

Lohd`r djus dh ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqñ

o"kZ

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

'kh"kZd

ekud lañ

5126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vksfM'kk

5682784

21@05@2013

esllZ lR;e dkfLVax izkñfyñ

lajpuk bLikr ¼lk/kkj.k

2831

2012

IykWV uañ ,@2] pkS/kj baMfLVª;y LVsV]

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

xksikyiqj] iksLV&pkliMk]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr baxV]

ftyk&dVd]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc&

vksfM'kk&754027

fof'kf"V

5683887

23@05@2013

esllZ ikoZrh vyadkj TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

1417

1999

IykWV uañ 200@791] jaxksyh pkSd]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

QfVZykbtj Vkmuf'ki] ihñ,lñ&

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

raxkjiYyh] jkmjdsyk] ftyk&

lqanjx<+] vksfM'kk

5685689

24@05@2013

esllZ Hkw"k.k ikWoj ,.M LVhy fyñ

[kks[kys bLikr ds [kaM

4923

1997

xzke&FksydksyksbZ] iksLV&ykiaxk]

lajpukRed iz;ksx ds

rglhy&jsaxkyh]

fy;s&fof'kf"V

ftyk&lacyiqj]

vksfM'kk&768232

5684081

27@05@2013

esllZ Jh txUukFk QwM ,.M csojsTl

iSdstcan is; ty

14543

2004

cksyx<+] ftyk&[kqnkZ]

¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

vksfM'kk&752066

fefujy ty ds vykok½

&fof'kf"V

[la- dsUæh; izek.ku foHkkx 13 % 11]

,l- pkS/kqjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013

S.O. 1940.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below

in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. Licence

Grant Date

Name and address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

5675282

03/04/2013

M/S MAA CHANDI JEWELLERS

Gold and hold alloys,

1417

1999

AT NEAR BETNOTI BUSSTAND

jewellery/artefacts-

PO/PS BETNOTI

fineness and marking-

DISTRICT-MAYURBHANJ,

ODISHA-757025

5675585

09/04/2013

M/S SUDHAKAR PVC Prod. Pvt.

High density

4984

1995

Ltd. PLOT NO. 3081-3106, 2849,

Polyethylene pipes

50,52,57,58,528/231, PITATALI

for potable water

(V), DISTRICT-GANJAM,

supplies

ODISHA

5676183

09/04/2013

M/S KANAK JEWELLERY

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

WARD NO. 09, MAIN ROAD,

jewellery/artefacts-

BARBIL, DISTRICT-KEONJHAR,

fineness and marking-

ODISHA-758035

5676284

09/04/2013

M/S NAVRANG JEWELLERS

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

DHARMSHALA LANE, GAIRY

jewellery/artefacte

ROAD, DISTRICT-SAMBALPUR,

fineness and marking-

ODISHA-768001

5676385

09/04/2013

M/S ISWAR JEWELLERY

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

MOTIGANJ BAZAR,

jewellery/artefacts-

BALASORE,

fineness and marking-

ODISHA-756003

Øe

ykbZlsal uañ

Lohd`r djus dh ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqñ

o"kZ

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

'kh"kZd

ekud lañ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5127

5676486

09/04/2013

M/S RADHAKRUSHNA

Gold and gold alloys.

1417

1999

JEWELLERY WORKS

jewellery/artefacts-

AT/PO/PS BAISINGA,

fineness and marking-

DISTRICT-MAYURBHANJ,

ODISHA

5676991

10/04/2013

M/S ADHUNIK METALIKS

High strength deformed

1786

2008

LIMITED AT-CHADRIHA-

steel bars and wires for

RIHARPUR, PO-KUARMUNDA,

concrete reinforcement

ROURKELA, DISTRICT-

SUNDARGARH, ODISHA

5676688

11/04/2013

M/S DURGA JEWELLERY

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

AT BANIAPATI, NEAR

jewellery/artefacts-

BALISAHI DISTRICT-PURI

fineness and marking-

ODISHA

5676789

11/04/2013

M/S SANTOSH JEWELLERY

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

AT DOLAMUNDAI,

jewellery/artefacts-

HOLDING NO. 634, PO.

fineness and marking

BUXIBAZAR, PS. PURIGHAT,

DISTRICT-CUTTACK,

ODISHA-753001

5677690

12/04/2013

M/S WEMAK PLASTIX

Unplasticized pvc pipes

4985

2000

20, GANESWARPUR INDUS-

for potable water

TRIAL ESTATE, JANUGANJ

supplies-

DISTRICT-BALASORE,

ODISHA-756019

5680073

23/04/2013

M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND

Steel tubes for

3601

2006

STEEL Ltd. VILL-THELKOLOI,

mechanical and general

TEH-RENGALI PO-LAPANGA

engineering purposes

DISTRICT-SAMBALPUR,

ODISHA-768232

5679088

30/04/2013

M/S SHRI RADHA RAMAN

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

ALLOYS LTD

ingots, billets, blooms

VILL-JHARBEDA, PO-

and slabs for re-rolling

JHARBEDA, PS-KUTRA,

into steel for general

RAJGANGPUR

structural purposes

DISTRICT-SUNDARGARH,

ODISHA-770070

5679290

01/05/2013

M/S HARCHANDI DRINKS

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

AT/PO:NIRAKARPUR, JANKIA,

(other than packaged

DISTRICT-KHURDA,

natural mineral water)-

ODISHA-752019

5679391

02/05/2013

M/S RASMI DRINKS PVT. LTD.

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

69, BHAGABANPUR

water (other than

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

packaged natural

BHUBANESWAR,

mineral water)-

DISTRICT-KHURDA,

ODISHA-751019

5680477

09/05/2013

M/S MANOJ AQUA DRINKS

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

RAJNAGUDA, KORAPUT

water (other than

ODISHA-764036

packaged natural

mineral water)-

5680679

09/05/2013

M/S SARASWATI ALANKAR

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

AT. JAGANNATHPUR

jewellery/artefacts-

PO. BASANTIA, PS:

fineness and marking-

NANDIPADA, DISTRICT-

KEONJHAR,

ODISHA

5681479

17/05/2013

M/S KANAK MANDIR JEWELLERS Gold and gold allowys

1417

1919

MAIN ROAD, PS: P.S. ROAD,

jewellery/artefacts-

ROURKELA,

fineness and marking-

DISTRICT-SUNDARGARH,

ODISHA-769001

5681580

17/05/2013

M/S ALANKAR JEWELLERS

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

HOLDING NO. 35, WARD NO. 5

jewellery/artefacts-

NIMCHOURI, CHANDINI CHOWK fineness and marking

DISTRICT-CUTTACK,

ODISHA-753002

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec.

Year

No.

5128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5681681

17/05/2013

M/S SENAPATI JEWELLERS

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

MAIN ROAD, RAHMA

jewellery/artefacts-

DISTRICT-JAGAT SINGH PUR,

fineness and marking

ODISHA-754140

5681880

17/05/2013

M/S EPARI SADASHIV PVT. LTD.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

PLOT NO. 864, KHATA NO. 181,

jewellery/artefacts-

UNIT NO. 10 CITY NO. 05,

fineness and marking-

BHASKAR GANJ,

DISTRICT-BALASORE,

ODISHA-756001

5681984

17/05/2013

M/S D.P. & SONS JEWELLERS

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

HOLDING NO. 44 & 45,

jewellery/artefacts-

WARD NO.5, NIMCHOURI,

fineness and

DISTRICT-CUTTACK,

marking-

ODISHA-753002

5682077

17/05/2013

M/S BIJIPRUSTY ALANKAR

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

PLOT NO. 291/675,

jewellery/artefacts-

AT/PO KHALISAHI,

fineness and marking-

PS: KHANDAPADA,

DISTRICT-NAYAGARH,

ODISHA

5682784

21/05/2013

M/S SATYAM CASTINGS PVT. LTD.

Carbon steel cast billet

2831

2012

PLOT NO. A/2, CHOUDHAR

ignots, billets, blooms

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

and slabs for re-rolling

AT-GOPALPUR, PO-CHASAPADA,

into low tensile

DISTRICT-CUTTACK,

structural steel-

ODISHA-754027

5683887

23/05/2013

M/S PARBATI ALANKAR

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

JEWELLERS

jewellery/artefacts-

PLOT NO. 200/791, RANGOLI

fineness and marking-

CHOWK FERTILIZER TOWNSHIP,

PS. TANGARPALLI, ROURKELA,

DISTRICT-SUNDARGARH,

ODISHA

5685689

24/05/2013

M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND

Hollow steel sections

4923

1997

STEEL LTD.

for structural use

VILL-THELKOLOI, TEH-RENGALI

PO-LAPANGA,

DISTRICT-SAMBALPUR,

ODISHA-768232

5684081

27/05/2013

M/S SRI JAGANNATH FOOD &

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

BEVERAGES, AT: BOLGARH

water (other than

DISTRICT-KHURDA,

packaged natural

ODISHA-752066

Water)-

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1941.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~

}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal jí fd, x, gSa%

Øe

ykblsal uañ

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jí@LFkfxr djus dh

lañ

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

frfFk

5216654

esllZ vkslh,y bafM;k fyñ

rsy ds dqvksa gsrq lhesaV dh fof'k"V

30-04-2013

jktxaxiqj]

vkb,l 8229%1986

ftyk&lqanjx<+]

vksfM'kk& 770017

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

,lñ pkSèjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec.

Year

No.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5129

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013

S.O. 1941.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the licences particulars of which are given below have

been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

CM/L

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/suspension

5216654

M/S OCL India Ltd.

Oil-Well Cement

30-04-2013

Rajgangpur

IS 8229:1986

District:Sundargarh,

Odisha- 770017

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1942.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

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

vkbZ ,l 12171%2013 #bZ dh xkBsa µ fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 12171%1999

vxLr 2013

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

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

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

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

[lanHkZ Vh ,Dl Mh@th &25]

izHkkdj jk;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh ,Dl Mh½

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013

S.O. 1942.—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 Indian Standared, particular of which is given in the Schedule hereto

annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

No., Title and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the Indian

Date of Establishment

No.

Standards

Standards, if any, Superseded

by the New Indian Standard

IS 12171:2013 Cotton Bales-

IS 12171:1999

August 2013

Specification (Second Revision)

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

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

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

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. TXD/G-25]

PRABHAKAR RAI, Scientist 'E' & Head (TXD)

5130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1943.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkU/kzk izns'k jkT; ds Hkhrj xsy ¼bf.M;k½

fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds fy, l{ke vf/kdkjh ds dk;ks± dk

fuoZgu djus ds fy, Jherh ,uñ lqxquk dqekjh] Lis'ky fMñ dyDVj]

vkU/kzk izns'k ljdkj dks fnukad 23-08-2013 ls izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[lañ ,y&14014@26@2013 &thñihñ]

,lñ ihñ vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013

S.O. 1943.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2

of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Central

Government hereby authorize Smt. N. Suguna Kumari

Special Dy. Collector, Government of Andhra Pradesh to

perform the functions of Competent Authority for all

pipelines of GAIL (India) Limited, under the said Act, within

the territory of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 23.08.2013.

[No. L-14014/26/2013- G.P.]

S.P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1944.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,y ds izca/kra= ds laca/k fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh-II]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013

S.O. 1944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Govt. Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad

(50/2008) 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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of June, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.50/2008

Between:

Sri Arapally Rama Swamy,

S/o Rajam,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

.....Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bellampally (P). Adilabad District.

....Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Petitioner, Sri Arapally Rama Swamy who has been

working as a coal filler for the M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., filed this petition invoking Sec.2A(2) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for declaring the

impugned order No.P.BPA/129/840 dated 20.3.1998 issued

by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set

aside the same consequently directing the respondents to

reinstate the petitioner into service duly granting all other

consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief

are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as Floating badli

filler at MVK-5 incline on 11.10.1986 and subsequently

he was confirmed as Coal Filler by virtue of his sincere

and hard work. He was regular to his duties till the year

1996. During the year 1996 Petitioner suffered with several

ailments, such as Asthama and abdominal problem, to

which he has taken treatment at company's area hospital.

While so, a charge sheet dated 4.4.1997 was issued alleging

that petitioner remained absent during the year 1996 which

amounts to misconduct under company standing order

25.25. He submitted his explanation explaining his inability

to perform his duties regularly during that year but without

considering the same an enquiry was conducted with a

predetermined notion. During that enquiry petitioner was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5131

not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. Basing

on such lop sided enquiry the enquiry officer held the

charges as proved. Basing on the erroneous findings of the

enquiry officer show cause notice was issued to which

petitioner submitted his reply on 16.1.1998. However,

without considering the merits of the same he was dismissed

from service, with effect from 24.3.1998 vide office order

dated 20.3.1998. Petitioner could not attend to his duties

regularly during the year 1996 only on account of his ill-

health and other family problems. He submitted the same

to his authorities time and again and also pleaded that he

will attend the duty without absence in future, but the same

were not considered. The action of the respondents in

dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly illegal,

arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The

enquiry was not properly conducted. The procedure of

enquiry was not explained to the petitioner. He was not

offered the assistance of any defence assistant. Thus, he

could not effectively participate in the enquiry and he could

not mark the medical and other documents on his behalf to

prove his ill health. Though he has shown all the

prescriptions and other records pertaining to his continued

ill health, none of them were marked by the enquiry officer.

The submissions made by the petitioner were ignored on

the pretext that he could not substantiate his claim with

relevant proof. As a result of the improper conduct of

enquiry great prejudice is resulted to the petitioner. He was

not given opportunity to produce his witnesses. The enquiry

officer relied upon the evidence of irrelevant witnesses who

got no personal knowledge of the charge alleged against

the petitioner and the documents which were neither shown

nor furnished to the petitioner either before or during the

enquiry and which are also not establishing the charge

alleged. No valid reasons are given for his findings by the

enquiry officer. The enquiry officer grossly erred in holding

the charges as proved. The enquiry officer and the

Disciplinary Authority proceeded with a preconceived

notion as if petitioner accepted the charges alleged, which

is not correct. The enquiry proceeding were not held in the

language known to the petitioner. The findings of

Disciplinary Authority are out side the scope of the charge

sheet as such the impugned order of dismissal order dated

20.3.1998 is liable to be treated as bad in law. Petitioner is

the sole bread winner of the family consisting of old aged

parents, wife and three children. As a result of petitioner's

dismissal from service his family is rendered without any

livelihood. Petitioner could not attend to his duties during

the year 1996 only on account of his ill health and family

problems. Even otherwise the punishment of dismissal from

service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the

charges alleged. petitioner has not gainfully employed

elsewhere from the date of dismissal. Without admitting

the charges alleged against the petitioner even if they are

rightly held to be proved, petitioner craves,indulgence of

this court to modify the punishment to any other lesser

punishment so as to survive himself and to look after the

family. Hence the petition.

3. Respondents filed their counter with averments

in brief as follows:

Petitioner has not followed the proper procedure to

entertain the industrial dispute, by straight away

approaching the court without seeking for conciliation. The

state amendment is not applicable to the Central

Government undertakings. Petitioner was dismissed from

service vide order dated 20.3.1998, whereas he raised the

dispute in the year 2007 without explaining the reasons for

delay. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed for want

of maintainability, delay and latches. Petitioner was

dismissed from service on proved charge of absenteeism

after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following

the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was initially

appointed as floating badli filler on 11.10.1986 and drafted

as coal filler w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and continued to be so till the

date of his dismissal. He was issued with charge sheet

No.MVK.6/28/97/649 dated 4.4.1997 for his absence from

duty on various dates during the period from 1.1.1996 to

31.12.1996 without any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause

under respondent company's Standing Orders 25.25 which

reads as

"25.25:

Habitual late attendance or habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause."

Petitioner acknowledged the receipt of charge sheet

and submitted his explanation which was found

unsatisfactory. As such, an enquiry was ordered by

appointing an Enquiry Officer. During the year 1994 the

Petitioner had put in 142 musters, in 1995-131 musters, in

1996-89 musters and in 1997-77 musters only. Petitioner

claims that though he explained the reason for his inability

to attend duties, the merit of the same were not considered

and that with a predetermined notion the enquiry was

conducted are all incorrect. Petitioner was given every

opportunity to defend his case, to submit witnesses and to

record evidence in his support and to cross examine the

witnesses examined on behalf of the Management, during

the enquiry. His contention that it is a lop sided enquiry is

incorrect. His further contention that he was dismissed from

service without considering merits of his submissions is

also incorrect. By giving full and fair opportunity to the

petitioner, in compliance of the principles of natural justice,

the enquiry was conducted and disciplinary action was

taken against him. The petitioner's attendance to the duties,

indicates that after issuance of charge sheet and even before

issuance of the charge sheet, he was not regular to duties.

Being a badli filler and an under ground employee he was

expected to put in minimum 190 musters per year. But he

failed to do so. For the absenteeism of the petitioner during

the year 1996 he was issued with a charge sheet. Despite

giving opportunity petitioner failed to correct himself,

which compelled the respondent to dismiss him from

service. Petitioner neither disputed the enquiry proceeding

nor objected for the presentation of the pay sheet clerk

during the course of enquiry. He did not cross examine the

5132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management witnesses when opportunity was extended

to him. The enquiry officer duly considered the oral and

documentary evidence adduced on record and gave his

reasoned finding. Petitioner failed to show as to why these

findings are not valid. The contention that findings of the

Disciplinary Authority are outside the scope of the charge

is also not correct. If any of the employees of the respondent

company whose work is inter linked and inseparable

remained absent it will affect the production results. Thus,

if any one remains absent without prior leave or without

any justified cause it prejudices the interests of the

respondent company as it creates sudden void which at

times is very difficult to fill up. There will be no proper

planning and the already planned schedules suddenly get

disturbed, if there is not prior notice. That is the reason the

why respondent company is compelled to take serious

action on the unauthorized absence. Petitioner has put in

142, 131, 089 and 077 musters in 1994, 1995, 1996 and

1997 respectively when he was expected to put in

minimum190 musters in a calender year. As such,

respondent company was constrained to dismiss him from

service. In view of the binding legal precedents governing

this area also the respondent's action in this regard is

justifiable. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. During the course of the present case proceedings,

for petitioner, a memo has been filed conceding the validity

of domestic enquiry. Thereon the domestic enquiry has been

held to be valid by virtue of the order dated 30.6.2010.

5. Heard the arguments of either party.

6. The points for determination:

Whether the respondent's action in issuing the

impugned order No. PBP A/129/840 dated

20.3.1998 is legal and justified?

To what relief Petitioner is entitled to?

7. Point No(1):

As can be gathered from the material on record,

Petitioner, who has been working as coal filler for the

respondent company remained absent from duty for several

days during the year 1996 which lead to the respondent

taking disciplinary action against the Petitioner, after

serving charge sheet on the Petitioner whereunder it is stated

that he is charged with the misconduct under Standing

Orders 25.25 as he was habitually absent from duty without

sufficient cause. For that Petitioner has given his

explanation accepting the truth of the contention of the

respondent that he was absent from duty during the relevant

time but claiming that he was absent so, since he was sick

and unable to attend to duty. Having not satisfied with the

said explanation, enquiry was ordered against the Petitioner

appointing an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The

enquiry officer duly conducted the enquiry, affording

reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner. As already

observed above Petitioner has already conceded to the

validity of the said domestic enquiry. But it is his consistent

and categorical contention that he was absent from duty as

he was sick but not without any reasonable cause. If such

is the case, there is sufficient reason for his absence from

duty.

8. As can be gathered from the enquiry proceeding

produced by the respondent, even during the enquiry

Petitioner has made a statement to the effect that he suffered

an accident during the year 1996 and further he suffered

sickness and reported sick, and under went treatment and

due to these reasons he was unable to attend duties during

the year 1996. Though this categorical statement was made

by the Petitioner before the enquiry officer, he was not

subjected to any cross examination by the presenting

officer, which means, these contentions of the Petitioner

remained uncontradicted to. When all these proceedings

are considered in toto, what one can reasonably understand

is that admittedly Petitioner absented himself from duty

during the various dates mentioned in the charge sheet filed

against him, but he was unable to attend to the duty during

these days as he was sick, but not without sufficient reason.

The Disciplinary Authority though, perused the entire

enquiry proceedings while taking disciplinary action against

the Petitioner, failed to take note of these facts. He

mechanically accepted the findings of the enquiry officer,

though, the enquiry report does not show that the enquiry

officer has taken note of the fact that the uncontradicted

statement of the Petitioner is to the effect that he was unable

to attend to the duties at the relevant time, owing to sickness

but not without sufficient reason. This is an one important

aspect to be taken note of.

9. The Learned counsel for the respondent relied

upon the principles laid down in the case of State of U.P.

and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another 1996(1)

SCC 302 and also North Eastern Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation 2006(5) SCC 136, in support of

his contention that when there is continous absence from

duty on the part of the workman courts can not take lenient

view of the matter and they shall not interfere with the

punishment awarded to them by the Disciplinary Authority.

10. As far as the case of Ashok Kumar Singh, who

has been a police official, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with

the question whether the Hon'ble High Court who concurred

with the findings of the Services Tribunal, can interefere

with the order passed in the departmental enquiry and was

confirmed by the tribunal. In this case the conduct of a

police official, who was serving in such disciplined force

demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures

more than any other department, was under consideration.

11. In the cae of Ashappa, more than three years

continous absence from duty, camp up for consideration,

it's not so in the present case. Further, the facts of the case

show that inspite of the employee being given opportunity

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5133

to resume his duties he remained absent for more than 3

years. Further, he was a teacher, who is supposed to conduct

himself with all property. Whereas in the present case

conduct of an unskilled labourer is under consideration.

12. Considering the different set of facts, discussed

above which came up for consideration, in the above cited

cases, Hon'ble Apex Court held that court shall not be

lenient while considering such kind of absence from duty.

Whereas the facts of the present case are totally different,

and they do not warrant the gravest punishment possible

provided for in the Standing Orders of the respondent

company.

13. As can be gathered from the material on record,

this is the one and only disciplinary action faced by the

Petitioner for any misconduct. But the punishment awarded

to him is the gravest punishment provided for, for the

misconduct in the Standing Orders, though the Standing

Orders of the respondent company spell out several other

punishments for the misconduct. Only the persons who are

incorrigible in all respects gravest punishment provided

for is to be awarded. But, as already discussed above, the

record shows that this is the one and only disciplinary action

faced by the Petitioner that too, there is an explanation

given by the Petitioner for his absence from duties which

is not being contradicted to. In such case, awarding gravest

possible punishment provided is certainly unwarranted.

There are no reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority

in the impugned order for awarding such gravest

punishment to the Petitioner. Thus, it is to be taken that it

is an arbitrary order which is liable to be set aside.

This point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.II: In view of the finding given in Point

No.1, the impugned order dated 20.3.1998 whereunder

Petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed from services

with effect from 24.3.1998, is liable to be set aside and he

is to be ordered to be reinstated into service. But, as to the

conduct of the petitioner in remaining absent from duty

for long duration without intimation/sanction of leave which

would certainly resulted into prejudice to the interests of

the respondent company, appropriate alternative

punishment is to be imposed, by way of modifying the

punishment of dismissal from service imosed against him.

On due consideration of the nature of the misconduct for

which the punishment is to be awarded and the

circumstances which lead the Petitioner to commit such

misconduct, one can see that the reasonable punishment to

be awarded is stoppage of one increment with commulative

effect only. As far as back wages are concerned, Petitioner

is not entitled for the same, since he raised industrial dispute

only in the year 2008 whereas the impugned order was

passed on 20.3.1998 thus, there is inordinate delay on the

part of the Petitioner in raising the dispute. But, he is entitled

for continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result

15. In the result, petition is allowed. The punishment

awarded by virtue of impugned order No.P.BPA/129/840

dated 20.3.1998 by the respondent dismissing the Petitioner

from service with effect from 24.3.1998, is hereby set aside.

By way of modification of the punishment, Petitioner is

hereby awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one

increment with cumulative effect. Petitioner shall be

reinstated into service with immediate effect. He is not

entitled for any back wages, but he is entitled for all other

attendant benefits.

This point is answered accordingly.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt.P.Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 13th day of

June, 2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

-NIL-

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

-NIL-

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1945.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43 dk 2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@229@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 43/2005 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s CCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-20012/229/2004-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

5134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act

Ref. No. 43 of 2005

Employer in relation to the management of Piparwar Area,

M/s. CCL,

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT :

SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer,

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated 19/7/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/229/2004-IR (CI),

dated 31/03/2005, the Central Government in the Ministry

of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

''Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union from the management of CCL, Piprawar Area

for reinstatement and regularization of S/Sri Gautam

Singh and 31 Others (as per list) is proper and

justified? If so, to what relief are the workman

concerned entitled?''

ANNEXURE

1. Goutam Singh

2. Dinesh Rana

3. Suresh Nayak

4. LavKush Kr. Singh

5. Pradeep Kr. Dubey

6. Pramod Kr. Singh

7. Ram Nandan Ram

8. Mahesh Ram

9. Upendra Kr. Singh

10. Tuntun Ram

11. Jai Ram

12. Haresh Ram

13. Raja Ram

14. Sanjay Ram

15. Md. Miraj Ansari

16. Prabir Alam

17. Suresh Mahato

18. Wakil Ram

19. Rajesh Kumar

20. Vinod Nayak

21. Yogendra Ram

22. Nand Kumar Saw

23. Laxhaman Ram

24. Dilip Viswakarma

25. Laxman Gupta

26. Dhannajay Saw

27. Raju Ram

28. Bartu Ganju

29. Ajay Kr. Singh

30. Gajarnath Bhogta

31. Gopal Ganju

31. Ravi Bhgta

2. After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is

presumed that the disputes between parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1946.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89

dk 2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@83@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I)]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5135

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-20012/83/2005-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act

Ref. No. 89 of 2005

Employer in relation to the management of W. J. Area

BCCL.

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES:

For the employers:

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman:

Sri N.P. Gupta, Concerned

Workman

State :

Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 29.7.2013

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/83/2005-IR (CM-I) dtd.

2.11.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL,

W.J. Area in dismissing Sh. Narayan Prasad Gupta,

Loader from service w.e.f. 5/6.5.1999 is just, fair and

Legal? If not to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 1.12.2005. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed, they submitted their respective written statement

and rejoinder. The workman filed ten documents Extb. W-I

to Extb. W-10. On the other hand from the side of

management, neither any witness has been examined nor

any documents are marked.

3. The workman has been dismissed from his job on

the ground of continuous absence. From the documents

the workman has requested the management, to engage

him and he will never be absented from duty. Considering

repentance of the workman, it is felt proper, to allow his

reinstatement, on duty, but without any back wages

whatsoever. Here also management did not like to adduce

any evidence.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of BCCL,

W.J. Area in dismissing Shri Narayan Prasad Gupta, Loader

from service 5/6.5.99 is not justified and fair, hence his is

reinstated in service without back wages.

This is my Award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

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

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

egkjk"Vª ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 94@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@81@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2013

S.O. 1947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/No. 94/2004) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

16.08.2013

[No. L-12012/81/2004-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/94/04

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Santosh Kumar,

S/o Shri Sahadeo Nandanwar,

At & PO Karanja,

Tehsil Lanji,

Balaghat

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager

Bank of Maharashtra,

Chawala Complex, Sai Nagar,

Raipur

...Management

5136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of July, 2013

As per letter dated 18-8-2004 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-12012/81/2004-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the Manager, Bank of

Maharashtra Karanja Branch, Tehsil Lanji Distt.

Balaghat (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Sahadeo Nandanwar,

Ex-employee of Bank of Maharashtra, Karanja Branch

w.e.f. 31-12-2000 is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/8. However in caption, the parties are wrongly

shown vice-versa. The case of workman is that his services

were in subordinate cadre at Bank of Maharashtra for 481

days. The Branch Manager terminated his services from

31-12-2000. The bank of Maharashtra being a nationalized

Bank, provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 are applicable. The service

conditions of bank employees are covered by Shastri

Award, Desai Award and different settlements signed

between the employer and Union. That his name was

registered in Employment Exchange Office, Balaghat bearing

Registration No. 2779. That he was not Matriculate at the

time of his first appointment. On 30.12.95, he was appointed

as part-time sweeper. Prior to his selection, he was

interviewed by Branch Manager, Shri B.M. Rai. His caste,

Educational Qualification was considered. Interview was

conducted. He was not given order in writing that one Shri

Sidarth Ramteke was working as permanent part-time

sweeper at Karanja branch who died on 6-6-2000. His

services were utilized during the period 13-12-95 to

30-12-2000. He was paid salary in cash obtaining his

signatures. Workman submits that his signature were

obtained on vouchers. He was performing various kinds of

duties attending post office, attending counter, vouchers

and books of the bank etc. He has given details of his

working in Para-5 of his statement of claim. He submits that

he has worked for 480 days in Bank. His services were

terminated without notice, without paying retrenchment

compensation before he had continuously working for 240

days on Bank. His termination of services amounts to illegal

retrenchment. On such grounds, he prays for quashing of

order of his termination and reinstate with full back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/

8. Claim of workman is denied. IInd party submits that the

management engage regular staff. Considering the

exigencies, the persons are engaged on contract basis on

daily wages. That the Ist party workman was engaged as

casual worker for cleaning work of the Branch on daily

wage basis. Ist party workman as well as the management

were at liberty to engage on next day or nor and the workman

had worked only for 122 days during 1997 to 2000. It is

denied that workman had completed 240 days continuous

service. That the discontinuation of service of workman is

covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. The workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service as provided

under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. The workman was not

regularly recruited. It is denied that workman was

interviewed by Branch Manager. It is submitted that

workman had never faced regular selection process. He

might have asked his name, educational qualification etc.

The workman was engaged on exigency. That Ist party

workman concealed his passing SSC in 1996 while

registering his name in Employment Exchange. Ist party

not completed 240 days service preceding his date of

termination. The provision of section 25-F, G. of I.D. Act are

not violated. Non-compliance of Section 25-F is denied.

IInd party prays for rejection of claim of workman.

4. Ist party filed rejoinder denying material

contentions of IInd party and reiterates his own earlier

contentions. Ist party prays for his reinstatement with back

wages.

5. Considering pleading on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the Manager, Bank of

Maharashtra Karanja Branch, Tehsil Lanji Distt.

Balaghat (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Sahadeo

Nandanwar, Ex-employee of Bank of

Maharashtra, Karanja Branch w.e.f. 31-12-2000

is legal?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

As per final order.

REASONS

6. Ist Party workman is challenging his dis-

engagement from 31-12-2000. He claims that he was working

for 480 days in the Bank. That he was continuously working

for more than 240 days. That his services are terminated in

violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act. He was not given

notice. IInd party submits that workman was engaged on

part-time/contract basis for cleaning work. They have not

completed 240 days continuous service.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering

his contentions that he had completed 240 days in each of

the year prior to termination of his service. That there was

not fixed time assigned to him. He was required to work for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5137

whole day. He was appointed as peon w.e.f. 30-12-95. He

completed 240 days service. His services were discontinued

in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act. The

documents Exhibit W-1 to W-4 are produced by workman.

The document Exhibit W-1, W-2 are taking entries for the

amount deposited. Copies of vouchers are produced. Bank

has produced document Exhibit M-1 copy of rules for

destruction of documents. Exhibit- M-2 is the copy of the

copies of vouchers Exhibit M-3 dare are produced. The

vouchers finds names of Shanta Bai, Santosh Kumar, written

on the reverse side. Though it is tried to be argued that

workman was paid wages Rs. 5 per day, the argument cannot

be accepted as voucher dated 31-5-2000 shows wages paid

Rs. 10 per day. Voucher dated 22-8-2000 shows wages paid

Rs. 15 per day. Therefore the calculations submitted during

course of argument about working days on payment of

Rs. 5 per day is contrary to the documents produced on

record. The IInd party has contented that the workman

was engaged as casual employee on contract basis. IInd

party has not produced records despite application for

production of documents was filed by the workman. Under

such set of facts, evidence of workman cannot be discarded.

The applicant's evidence is corroborated by voucher Exhibit

M-3 and documents Exhibit W-2 and W-3.

8. In his cross-examination, workman has denied

suggestions of management that he had not worked 240

days preceding his termination. Workman says during 96

to 99, he was paid amount through two accounts and debit

vouchers. The writing on the register is in his handwriting.

He also admits that he worked for 480 days in bank is

incorrect. Considering the evidence of management's

witness in cross-examination that he has no personal

knowledge, he is working in Branch from 2011. That he has

filed affidavit of his evidence as per the record. However

the record is not produced. From 30-12-95 to 30-12-2000,

the services of workman were engaged. The record of leave

vacancy is destroyed. He has not seen record of the period

95 to 96. If evidence of workman is tested on probabilities,

the evidence of management's witness cannot be accepted

as the relevant documents are not produced. From the

evidence discussed above, it is proved that workman was

continuously working for 240 days prior to termination for

his service. His services were terminated without notice,

no retrenchment compensation was paid, therefore

termination of service of workman is in violation of section

25-F of I.D. Act and as such illegal, For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. I am turning to the point as to what relief, the

workman is entitled? Whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. The evidence on record

shows that the Ist party workman was not appointed

following selection process, the workman was engaged by

IInd party during the period 1995 to December 2000 after

about 5 years. The workman is not in employment since

year 2000 as the workman was not regularly selected

candidate. However his services are terminated in violation

of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, relief of reinstatement would

not be appropriate.

10. The counsel for IInd party has placed reliance on

ratio held in:—

"Case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd.

Versus Vinod Kumar Sharma. Their Lordship

considering the facts denial of rights of workman

provided under Labour statutes. Workmen shown

as employees of contractor or casual employees

when doing work of regular employees Labour Court

finding of concerned workmen to be employees of

Appellant/employer and not of contractor is held

correct. The employer resorted to subterfuge to avoid

liabilities-Non interference of High Court with finding

of fact recorded by Labour Court upheld."

The facts of present case are not comparable therefore the

ratio held in above case cannot be applied to present case.

Copies of award in R/48/99, R/100/01 are produced. I have

carefully gone through those awards. The facts of those

cases are not identical. The reinstatement of workman would

not be justified as he was not appointed following selection

process. The workman worked hardly 5 years. Therefore in

my considered view, reasonable compensation would be

appropriate. Compensation Rs. 1 Lakh would be justified.

Accordingly I hold and record my finding in Point No. 2.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

Action of the Manager, Bank of Maharashtra

Karanja Branch, Tehsil Lanji Disst. Balaghat

(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Santosh

Kumar S/o Shri Sahadeo Nandanwar w.e.f.

31-12-2000 is illegal.

(2)

IInd Party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 1 Lakh to the workman, retrenchment

compensation equal to wages for 75 days and

30 days wages in lieu of notice pay at the rate

of last wages drawn by workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%

interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1948.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 78@98½

5138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@32@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th August , 2013

S.O. 1948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/. No.

78/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court Jabalpur 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

16.08.2013.

[No. L-12012/32/97-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/78/98

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Regional Secretary, MPCBEA,

MP Central Bank Employees Association,

10, Junior, MIG, Bajrang Nagar,

Indore

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

CBI, R.O, Nirmal Bhavan,

Gwalior

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 22.4.98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No.L-12012/32/97/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in stopping 4 Annual Increments

prermanently in respect of Shri Dinesh Singh Parihar

w.e.f. 6.7.94 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. 1st party Union is challenging stoppage of 4 annual

increments of Shri Dinesh Singh Parihar w.e.f. 6.7.94 in the

dispute under reference. Even after issuing notices, the

Union did not participate in the proceeding, no statement

of claim is filed. 1st Party is proceeded exparte on 18.9.07.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:—

"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1949.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 77@98½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@51@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th August , 2013

S.O. 1949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/

No. 77/98 of the Central Government Industrial -Tribunal/

Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central Bank of India, and their

workman,which was received by the Central Government

on 16.08.2013.

[No. L-12012/51/97-IR (B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/77/98

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE,

Regional Secretary,

MP Central Bank Employees Association,

10, Junior, MIG, Bajrang Nagar,

Indore

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

CBI, R.O, Nirmal Bhavan,

Gwalior

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 22.4.98 by the Government of India,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5139

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/51/97/IR(B-

II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in stopping 4 Annual increments

prermanently in respect of Shri P.K. Jain w.e.f.

18.5.95 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

said workman is entitled?"

2. 1st party Union is challenging stoppage of one

increment of Shri P.K. Jain w.e.f. 18.5.95 in the dispute

under reference. Even after issuing notices, the Union did

not participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is

filed. 1st Party is proceeded exparte on 18.9.07.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:—

"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1950.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; u- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 147@1999½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@308@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I)]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th August , 2013

S.O. 1950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 147/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial -Tribunal -cum Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Area VI of

the BCCL and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 16.08.2013.

[No. L-20012/308/1998-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the master of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 147 of 1999

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

the Chief General Manager, Area VI, Kusunda

of M/s BCCL and their workmen

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman

None

On behalf of the

Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld.

Management

Advocate

State: JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th June, 2013

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 the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/208/98-IR (C-I) dated 22.02.1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management for the Area

VI of the BCCL in dismissing Smt. Shyamabai from

the services for the Company w.e.f. 6.5.1999 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workwoman

is entitled to."

2. Neither any representative of the Union concerned

for woman worker Smt. Shyamabai nor the worker herself

present for Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for the Opp./

Management could present nor any witness for the woman

worker produuced at preliminary point though since neither

the Union nor the workwoman has been prensent since

8.11.2010.

Perusal of the case record reveals undue absence of

the Union Representative/work woman for their proper

representation as well as for her evidence, though three

Regd. Notice have been issued to the Union Representative

on his address noted in the reference itself. In spite of it,

neither the Union Representative nor the work woman

Smt. Shyamabai appeared for the proper representation in

this case which is related to her dismissal from the service

of the Company w.e.f. 6.5.1997. It appears from their

conducts that the Union and the workwoman Smt.

Shyamabai are disinterested/unwilling to contest the case.

Under these circumstances, proceeding with the case

for uncertainty is unwarranted, as it appears no longer the

Industrial Dispute extent. Hence, the case is closed and

accordingly, it is passed an order of the "No Industrial

Dispute" existent.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

5140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1951.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

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

vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@342@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th August , 2013

S.O. 1951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial -Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

02.08.2013.

[No. L-12012/342/2000-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2001

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Budhan Ram,

S/o Shri Adhir Sai,

C/o Manbodh Ram,

Asstt. Director, Resham Udyog,

PO Ambikapur,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Mithhubara,

PO Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of March, 2013

1. As per letter dated 11-1-2001 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/342/2000/IR

(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Assistant General

Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, PO

Shahdol (MP) in retrenchment of Shri Budhan Ram.

S/o Shri Adhir Sai, Ex-Messenger in the Branch of

State Bank of India at Kamleshwarpur with effect

from 12-12-98 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party submitted statement of claim at Page

7/1 to 7/2. The case of 1st party/workman as per statement

of claim is he was engaged as Sweeper-cum-Farrash from

26-11-79 to 16-8-81 by IInd party. Again he was engaged

on 17-8-81 and discontinued on 12-12-98. 1st party workman

claims that he was working continuously without break.

His services were terminated giving one month's salary

and retrenchment compensation. That management did not

comply mandatory provisions under I.D. Act and rules.

Prior permission of appopriate Government was not

obtained. Mandatory provisions of Section 25-G were not

followed. On those grounds, 1st party/workman prays for

his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party/management submitted Written Statement

at Page 8/1 to 8/3. The claim of 1st party is totally denied. It is

submitted that 1st party/workman was engaged on monthly

basis for temporary post of messenger from 17-8-81. He was

terminated on 12-12-98 after paying one month's salary Rs.

5336.42 and retrenchment compensation of Rs. 16659.11 as

per Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. After retrenchment of

the workman management sent information notice to ALC(C),

Shahdol and RLC(C) Jabalpur in Form "P". That the services

of retrenched workman are not required. IInd party/

management further submits that 1st party/workman was given

opportunity to participate in interview for absorption in the

Bank in 1990 and 1996. However he was not found eligible for

absorption. Secondly his services were terminated giving

retrenchment compensation. It is further submitted that the

workman was engaged on temporary basis on stop-gap

arrangement and not on regular basis. In view of payment of

compensation, one month's salary, termination of services of

workman are not illegal. IInd party/management denied that

the workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar

year preceding his termination. On such grounds, IInd party

prays for rejection of prayer of workman.

4. 1st party submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/2

contending all the points submitted in Statement of Claim

and prayed for permanent absorption. As per Letter dated

14-5-92, the Branch Manager had requested Asstt. General

Manager for absorption of 1st party.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Regional

Office, PO Shahdol (MP) in

retrenchment of Shri Budhan

Ram S/o Shri Adhir Sai, Ex-

Messenger in the Branch of

State Bank of India at

Kamleshwarpur with effect from

12-12-98 is legal and justified.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5141

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

1st party/workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled for

reinstatement claimed

by him.

REASONS

6. 1st party/workman challenged his termination/

retrenchment on the ground that permission for

retrenchment was not obtained. Section 25-G of I.D. Act

was not followed. There is no dispute about the services

of the 1st party/workman terminated giving one month's

salary and retrenchment compensation. The IInd party has

contented that 1st party workman was given opportunity

for absorption in the year 1996 participating interview

conducted by the management but the 1st party/workman

was unsuccessful and not eligible for absorption. 1st party/

workman filed affidavit of his evidence at Page-9 consistent

with his pleadings about his initial appointment as sweeper

cum farrash and subsequent engagement from 1980 to 1998.

That he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar

year preceding his termination. Section 25-G is not complied.

Permission was not obtained for his retrenchment. However

the 1st party remained absent, not made available for his

cross-examination, as such proceeded exparte on 1-4-2011.

Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri Jagesh

Katiyar covering the points submitted in the Written

Statement. 1st party remained absent and failed to cross-

examine the witness of management. There is no reason to

disbelieve his evidence on affidavit. The evidence recorded

clearly shows that 1st party workman was not appointed

as per rules for recruitment. He was given opportunity for

absorption in 1990 and 1996. He was not found eligible for

absorption. The provisions of Section 25-F are also

complied. In view of those facts, workman is not appointed

following procedures for recruitment. His reinstatement may

amount of back door entry. Therefore the claim of 1st party

cannot be accepted. The action of retrenchment by IInd

party is just and legal. I therefore record my finding on

Point No. 1 in affirmative and Point No. 2 in negative.

7. In the result, I pass award as under:-

"1.

Action of termination of services of 1st party

by IInd party from 12-12-1989 is legal.

Claim of 1st party for reinstatement is rejected."

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1952.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@98½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@9@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@159@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/No. 76/98) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 18.09.2013.

[No. L-12012/159/97-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/98

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Indian National Bank Employees Federation,

9, Sanwer Road, Hrdev Niwas,

Ujjain.

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

The Asstt. General Manager,

UCO Bank, E-5,

Arera Colony,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 24-9-1998 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/159/97/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the Management of UCO

Bank in stopping the increment of Shri Ramesh Borker

and treating his absence period as a loss of pay even

being his absence beyond his control is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 8/1 to 8/4. IInd party management also filed Written

Statement.

3. Ist party workman filed application for withdrawal

of the reference. The management has no objection. Ist

party workman is present and admits that he does not

desire to prosecute the reference. The management has no

objection. Therefore withdrawal of claim of Ist party is

5142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

permitted. In view that 1st party is not prosecuting his

claim, No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1953.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58 dk 1993½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@232@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 58/1993 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

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

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/08/

2013.

[No. L-20012/232/1991-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.

Ref. No. 58 of 1993

Employer in relation to the management of Nirsa Area,

Phatka Colliery M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RAJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma,

Advocate

For the workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

AWARD

By Order No. 20012/232/91-IR (CM-I), dated 08/01/

1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

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

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Nirsa Area in relation to

their Phatka Colliery is not regularizing S/Sh Patal

Rauth and 17 others (as per list) as water supplier is

fair, just and legal? If not, to what benefit/relief the

workman concerned are entitled?"

Annexure

Patal Rauth, S/o Bhola Rauth

Bhuneshwar Mahato S/o Chethnu Mahato

Lakhu Mahato S/o Sri Dharani Mahato

Chota Manic Mahato S/o Naru Mahato

Sankar Mahato

Nandu Das S/o Gobind Das

Dwarika Mandal S/o Bonku Mandal

Aneth Mahato S/o Nakul Mahato

Manik Mahato S/o Mukunda Mahato

10.

Ganga Mahato S/o Sri Moti Mahato

11.

Panu Mahato S/o Annoli Mahato

12.

Budhan Mahato, S/o Late Rishi Mahato

13.

Saeli Mahato S/o Nakul Mahato

14.

Lakhan Mahato S/o Ramsaran Mahato

15.

Kisun Mallah S/o Basudeo Mallah

16.

Subodh Mahato S/o Late Jay Mahato

17.

Basudev Mahato S/o Sridhar Mahato

2. After receipt of the reference the parties are

noticed, Though they took steps for certain dates,

subsequently did not appears nor take any interest in the

case. It is presumed that the disputes between parties have

been resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute Award

is passed.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1954.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2011½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@103@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5143

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2011)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of SCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/103/2011-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 22nd day of July, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 45/2011

Between:

The General Secretary

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Singareni TNTUC,

H.No. 18-3-90/3, Ganesh Nagar

Markandeya Colony,

Godavarikhani-505209.

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri-504 303.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

NIL

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/103/2011-IR (CM-II) dated 2.8.2011

referred the following dispute between the management of

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., 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 General Manager,

Bhupalpalli Division, Warangal District in dismissing

the services of Sri Boda Thirupathi, Ex. Badli Filler,

KTK-6 Incline of Bhupalapalli Divn. with effect from

24.7.2009 is justified? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?"

2. The case stands posted for appearance of

Petitioner union and for filing of claim statement and

documents. Petitioner union called absent and there is no

representation since long time. Inspite of fair opportunity

claim statement was not filed by the Petitioner union. In

the circumstances, taking that Petitioner is not interested

in the proceedings, petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 22nd

day of July, 2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined

Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1955.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@32@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/32/2008-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/95/2008

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

5144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Secretary,

Sanyukta Koyala Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

CRO Camp , Iklehra,

Chhindwara

....Workman/Union

VERSUS

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Chhindwara

....Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 26th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 30-6-2008 by the Government

of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

22012/32/2008-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

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

in dismissing Shri Jitan w.e.f. 3-3-2007 is legal and

justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. The workman failed to appear after several

notices issued to him. Workman proceeded exparte on

14-9-2011.

3. The management of IInd party filed Written

Statement. It is submitted by IInd party workman was

habitual absentee. He did not improve his conduct even

after opportunity given to him. Charge No. 368 was issued

to him. Workman submitted reply but found unsatisfactory.

It was decided to conduct enquiry. Shri N.S. Bist, the then

Survey Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri Vinod

Vasnik, the then Under Manager was appointed as

Management Representative. The enquiry was conducted

on various dates. Request of workman for co-worker was

allowed. Workman admitted charges. After receiving report

of the Enquiry Officer, showcause was issued, no response

was received from workman. The punishment of dismissal

was imposed on 3-3-07.

4. Management filed affidavit of witness of Shri M.B.

Kumbhare supporting the contentions of the management

that enquiry was held against workman. Charges were

proved as per report of Enquiry officer. Punishment of

dismissal was imposed. Copies of Enquiry proceedings

are produced. The evidence of management's witness

remained unchallenged. I do not find reason to disbelieve

his evidence. The action of the IInd party management in

dismissing Ist party workman from 3-3-07 is not shown

illegal. Therefore I hold that action of the management is

legal.

5. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of M/s WCL in

dismissing Shri Jitan w.e.f. 3-3-2007 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1956.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2008½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@32@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

ch ,e iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/32/2008-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/93/2008

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Sanyukta Koyala Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

CRO Camp , Iklehra,

Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Chhindwara

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 30-6-2008 by the Government

of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5145

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal

under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/32/2008-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to :—

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

in dismissing Shri Ramlal w.e.f. 7-3-2007 is legal and

justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party failed to appear and file Statement of

Claim. Ist party is proceeded exparte as per order dated 14-

9-2011.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement. IInd party

submits that workman was habitual absentee. He was not

interested in service. He used to remain absent

unauthorisely. He did not improve his conduct despite

particulars given to him. Chargesheet No. 374 was issued

to the workman. Workman did not submit any reply

therefore management conducted enquiry Shri N.S. Bist,

the then Survey Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

Shri Vinod Vasnik, the then Under Manager was the

management's representative. The enquiry was conducted.

The Workman remained absent even after notices issued

to him. After report of Enquiry Officer charges were proved,

showcause notice was issued alongwith Enquiry Report.

No response was receiving from workman. Considering

the proved charges, punishment was imposed. The

Workman did not present. No evidence is adduced.

4. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

of Shri Kumhare. The witness has covered most of the

contentions of the written statement that after holding

enquiry and receiving report of Enquiry Officer, the order

of punishment was issued. The workman did not availed

opportunity even after issuing notices. Evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged as he was

not cross-examined on behalf of workman.

5. Considering the evidence on record, action of

management dismissing workman Ramlal from service

cannot be said illegal. Accordingly I hold.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of M/s WCL in

dismissing Shri Ramlal w.e.f. 7-3-2007 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1957.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@317@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2005)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 19.08.2013.

[No. L-22012/317/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/67/05

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Joint General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (INTUC),

B-24, Civil Lines, PO Kotma Colliery,

Distt. Annuppur (MP)

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

Chief General Manager,

Jamuna and Kotma Area,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

PO Jamuna, Distt. Annuppur,

Annuppur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of July, 2013

As per letter dated 15-07-2005 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/317/2004-IR(CM-

II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Jamuna and Kotma Area of SECL in superceding Shri

Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Store Keeper by his junior

Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi in the case of promotion of

Store Keeper (Gr. I) and Sr. Store Keeper (Special

Grade) and not promoting him at par with Shri Anil

Kumar Tripathi is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?"

5146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. After receiving reference, notices wre issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed his statement of claim

at Page 5/1 to 5/7. Case of 1st party is that he was appointed

on post of General Mazdoor Cat-I on 14.1.1983. He was

confirmed on said post on 1.1.1984. He was discharging

duties of clerical nature since 1984 in Stores. He was

promoted to the post of Store issuer in Clerical Grade III

on 1.4.86 as per order dated 2.6.86. His promotion was

followed by the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee. He was discharging his duties as

Store Incharge, Clerical Grade III with devotion. He was

promoted as Asstt. Store Keeper Clerical Grade II from

5.1.88 on recommendation of DPC. His promotion was as

per order dated 31.1.98. The said post was re-designated

as Asstt. Store Keeper w.e.f. 1.1.88 as per order dated

12.1.93. He was promoted to clerical Gr.-I in Pary Scale

1222-60-1702-66-2230. He was again promoted to the post

of Sr. Store Keeper in Clerical special Grade w.e.f. 1.9.99

as per order dated 10.9.99. He had joined promotion post

of Sr. Store Keeper on 10.9.99 and discharging said duties.

3. It is alleged that management was interested to

favour Shri A.K. Tripathi with a view to promote the above

applicant. The management intentionally cancelled order

of promotion as per order dated 28.12.2000. As per order

dated 27.1.01, he was promoted to the post of Sr. Store

Keeper Special Grade from 1.11.99 instead of 1.9.99. In

view of the said manipulation, the workman became junior

to Shri A.K. Tripathi and others. It is further submitted

that Shri A.K. Tripathi was junior to the workman since

his initial appointment and subsequent promotions. That

the workman and Shri A.K. Tripathi both were promoted

to the post of Store Keeper Gr-I on 30.1.93. In said order,

workman was placed above Mr. A.K. Tripathi looking to

his seniority. However in order to favour Shri A.K. Tripathi,

the management had given notional seniority to him from

1.12.92.That Mr. Tripathi was neither promoted to the post

of Clerical Gr-I nor he was entitled for the said post under

the Cadre Scheme on 1.12.92. The workman submits that

his ACRs were not adverse. There was no stigma against

him. Because of notional seniority given to Shri A.K.

Tripathi by favouritism, seniority of workman is affected.

On such grounds, it is prayed that notional seniority given

to Shri A.K. Tripathi is illegal. That workman be promoted

at par with Shri A.K. Tripathi with consequential benefits.

4. Management of IInd party filed Written Statement

at Page 6/1 to 6/5. The claim of Ist party workman is denied.

It is submitted that Shri A.K. Tripathi is not impleaded as

party. In his absence reference cannot be adjudicated. It

appears that the application for impleding Shri A.K.

Tripathi as party is filed but no order has passed on said

application. The allegation that Ist party was superseded

showing undue favour to Shri A.K. Tripathi are denied. It

is submitted that workman was initially appointed as

General Mazdoor Category. His services were confirmed.

On appointment to the post of General Mazdoor, there is

no need to pass degree/graduation. That workman was

selected for post of Clerical Grade-III as per order dated

2.6.86. Thereafter he was re-designated as Asstt. Store

Keeper w.e.f. 5.1.88. On recommendations of the DPC,

Shri S.K. Tripathi and A.K. Tripathi both were promoted

to the post of Store Keeper Grade-I as per order dated

30.1.93.

5. It is submitted that inadvertently in office order

No. 2021 dated 11.9.99, the workman was given promotion

of Store Keeper in Clerical Special Grade. When the

mistake was realized as per office order No. 3188 dated

28.12.2000, the order of promotion was cancelled with effect

from 1.9.99. The workman was again promoted w.e.f.

1.11.99 as per order dated 27.1.2001. That A.K. Tripathi

was working at the unit Store of Kotma West Mine from

1984. The workman was performing job of Store issue

Clerk. He was paid officiating allowance of Clerical Grade

from 1986. It was confirmed by the then Colliery Manager

Kotma West Mine vide order dated 11-12/5/93. That he

was regularized as Store Issue Clerk in Grade-III w.e.f.

1.1.1987 and subsequently as Asstt. Store Keeper in Gr-II

w.e.f. 1.4.88. Thus all along Shri A.K. Tripathi was working

in Store Cadre, whereas Shri S.K. Tripathi was actually

working in General clerical Cadre and was regularized as

Clerk Grade-III. He was later redesignated as Asstt. Store

Keeper in Gr. II w.e.f. 5.1.1988.

6. That as regards, the notional seniority of two

months granted to Shri A.K. Tripathi. He submitted that a

DPC was held in the year 1992 in which 5 A.S.K. Gr.-II who

are the batchmates of A.K. Tripathi were promoted to Store

Keeper Gr. I w.e.f. 1.12.92. Out of these five, two persons

were junior to Shri Tripathi as per his promotion in Grade-

III. On the representation of Shri A.K. Tripathi, the

Competent Authority considering this fact and his

continuous working in Store Cadre from the beginning,

has given notional seniority w.e.f. 1.12.92 without monetary

benefits. That representation of Shri A.K. Tripathi was

considered on ground that there were six A.S.K. Gr. II at

Regional Store. In the DPC hold during 1992, 5 candidates

out of six were promoted from 1.12.91 to S.K. Gr. I as per

available vacancy. The 6th candidate A.K. Tripathi whose

date of coming to Gr. II was the same of other persons i.e.

1.4.88 couldnot be considered due to non-availability of

vacancy. Thereafter he was promoted w.e.f. 30.1.93. That

Shri A.P. Mishra, A.P. Upadhyay both A.S.K. Gr. II promoted

among 5 persons are junior to Shri A.K. Tripathi. Ist party

workman was not superseding. On such grounds, IInd party

prays for rejection of the claim of Ist party workman.

7. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to

8/6 reiterating his earlier contentions about his initial

appointment and promotions. That Shri A.K. Tripathi was

shown favour and he was superseded. Notional seniority

given by management to Shri A.K. Tripathi is illegal.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5147

8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of Chief General

In Negative

Manager, Jamuna and Kotma Areas

of SECL in superceding Shri

Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Store

Keeper by his junior Shri Anil Kumar

Tripathi in the case of promotion of

Store Keeper (Gr. I) and Sr. Store

Keeper (Special Grade) and not

promoting him at par with Shri Anil

Kumar Tripathi is legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?"

order.

REASONS

9. Ist past workman alleges that Shri A.K. Tripathi was

given promotion by favoritism Notional seniroty was illegally

given to him on 5.12.94 but inadvertently affected his

seniority. Management denied those allegations. Ist party

workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating the facts that

he was appointed on the post of General Mazdoor Category

I on 14.1.83. He was confirmed on the said post on 1.1.1984.

He was promoted to the post of Store Issue Grade-III on

1.4.86. He was discharging duties of Store Issuer Clerk Grade-

III. He was promoted to the post of Store Keeper Clerical

Grade II on 5.1.88 on recommendations of DPC as per order

dated 31.1.88. Said post was re-designated as Asstt. Store

Keeper Grade-II w.e.f. 5.1.88 as per order dated 12.1.93. That

he was further promoted to the post of Sr. Store Keeper

Clerical Special Grade from 1.9.99. Said order of promotion

was cancelled as per order dated 28.12.2000. Fresh order of

promotion was issued on 27.1.01. He was promoted w.e.f.

1.11.99. That Shri A.K. Tripathi was junior to him. At the time

of initial appointment both of them were promoted to the

post of Store Keeper Grade-I from 30.1.93. That Shri A.K.

Tripathi was illegally given notional seniority w.e.f. 1.12.1992

10. In his cross-examination, Ist party workman has

stated about his promotion to Store Keeper and re-

designation of said post. His evidence on all those points

is not shattered in his cross-examination. It is denied that

Shri A.K. Tripathi was working as Store Clerk since

beginning. That Shri A.K. Tripathi was appointed as General

Mazdoor. He did not recollect the date. He was appointed

at Kotma Mines. He claims ignorance that Shri A.K. Tripathi

was granted officiating allowance for working as Store

Issue Clerk. He also claims ignorance whether Shri A.K.

Tripathi was appointed from 1.1.1987 as Store Issue Clerk.

It is denied that he was working in General Cadre and Shri

A.K. Tripathi was working in Store Cadre. Workman had

stated that both of them were in General Cadre itself.

Workman in his further cross-examination claims ignorance

in 1992, 5 Assistant Store Keepers were promoted on

recommendation of DPC. He reiterates that 2 months

notional seniroty given to Shri A.K. Tripathi is illegal.

11. Management witness Shri P. Mohanty stated most

of the facts pleaded in Written Statement filed by II party.

That recommendation of DPC Shri S.K. Tripathi and Shri

A.K. Tripathi were promoted to the post of Store Keeper

vide order dated 30.1.83. That inadvertently, order dated

11.9.99 was issued under which the workman was given

promotion to the post of Sr. Store Keeper Clerk Special

Grade. When mistake was realized, said office order was

cancelled as per order dated 20.12.2000 withs retrospective

effect from 1.9.99. That Shri A.K. Tripathi was working in

Unit Store Kotma Mines from 1984 performing job of Store

Issue Clerk for which he was paid allowance from clerk

Grade from 1986. It was confirmed by the then Colliery

Manager Kotma West Mine as per order dated 12.5.93.

That accordingly he was regularized as Store Issuer Grade-

III w.e.f. 1.1.1987. Subsequently placed as Asstt. Store

Keeper in Grade-II from 1.4.88. However the management

has not produced those documents. Management has

produced documents M-1 copy of order dated 10.4.88. Shri

A.K. Tripathi along with other employees was promoted

to A.S.K. Gr. II from 1.4.88. Exhibit M-2 is the order granting

notional seniority to Shri A.K. Tripathi as per his request.

Exhibit M-3 is letter dated 12.5.93 issued by Manager, Kotma

Mines informing that Shri A.K. Tripathi was earlier working

at Unit Store of Kotma West Mines since 1984 to August,

1986 as Mazdoor but he was performing job of Store Issue

Clerk.

12. In his cross-examination, management's witness

says that Shri A.K. Tripathi was senior to workman Shri

Santosh Tripathi but he had not seen the appointment

letter. On 30.1.93, DPC recommended their names for

promotion to Store Keeper Grade-I and accordingly they

were promoted. Name of Shri S.K. Tripathi the workman

was placed above name of Shri A.K. Tripathi. Thus the

claim of workman is substantiated that because of seniority,

his name was placed above Shri A.K. Tripathi. That workman

Shri S.K. Tripathi was promoted as Sr. Store Keeper Clerical

Grade-I on 10.9.99. Name of Shri A.K. Tripathi was not in

said order. He claims ignorance whether his name was not

recommended by DPC. The order of 1999 was cancelled as

per order dated 28.12.2000. Reasons for cancellation are

not given in the order. On 12.7.93, notional seniority was

given to Shri A.K. Tripathi from 1.12.92 on the ground that

his junior were promoted. At that time, case of Shri S.K.

Tripathi was not considered. There was no application of

workman Shri S.K. Tripathi at that time. That S.K. Tripathi

was Asstt. Store Keeper from 1.1.1988. He was re-

designated as Store Keeper. The note sheet dated 8.7.93

signed by Personnel Manager P. Chakravorty Exhibit M-2

5148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the name of Shri S.K. Tripathi is not considered.

Management's witness states that workman was in General

Cadre and both of them were brought to Store Cadre. Shri

A.K. Tripathi was in store cadre prior to the workman. The

documents produced by Ist party workman Exhibit W-1

date of his appointment as General Mazdoor Category is

14.1.83, Exhibit W-2 he was promoted to Clerical Grade III

on 2.6.86. Name of Shri A.K. Tripathi is not appearing in

Exhibit W-4. Document W-3 order of placing workman in

Clerk Grade-II from 5.1.88 Name of Shri A.K. Tripathi is not

appearing in it. Exhibit W-4 Shri S.K. Tripathi workman was

re-designated as Asstt. Store Keeper from 5.1.88. The order

was issued on 12.1.93. Exhibit W-5 Ist party workman and

Shri A.K. Tripathi were promoted to Store Keeper Grade I

on 30.1.93. The name of workman is placed above Shri A.K.

Tripathi. It supports claim of workman that he was senior

therefore his name was placed above Shri A.K. Tripathi to

substantiate Exhibit W-6 workman Shri S.K. Tripathi was

promoted to the post of Sr. Store Keeper in Clerical Special

Grade as per order dated 10.9.99. Name of Shri A.K. Tripathi

is not appearing in it. Exhibit W-7 is order of cancellation of

promotion of workman from 1.9.99. Exhibit W-8 is corrected

order of promotion issued on 27.1.01. Workman was given

promotion from 1.11.99. Document Exhibit W-7, W-8 are

not giving any reasons for cancellation of promotion of

workman and promoting him from 1.11.99. Exhibit W-9 is

order dated 23.2.98 Shri A.K. Tripathi was promoted from

Store Keeper Grade-I to Sr. Store Special Grade. As per

order Exhibit W-5 workman was senior to Shri A.K. Tripathi,

he was placed above his name at the time of promotion of

Store Keeper Grade-I. The documents donot explain how

workman had lost his seniority above Shri A.K. Tripathi

why workman was not promoted on 23.2.98 to the post of

Sr. Store Keeper Special Grade. Exhibit W-10 is order dated

12.7.93 giving notional seniority of Shri A.K. Tripathi from

1.12.92.

13. The evidence produced on record donot show

any reasons why the workman lost his seniority, how Shri

A.K. Tripathi was promoted as per order Exhibit W-10

superseding the workman. Therefore the action taken by

IInd party management granting notional seniority to Shri

A.K. Tripathi and issuing order of cancellation of promotion

of Ist party workman are not supported by any reasons.

Therefore the action of the management is illegal. The

seniority of Ist party workman is interfered for no reasons.

The contentions of Ist party workman that Shri A.K.

Tripathi is shown favour and intentionally his promotion

orders are cancelled is supported by the evidence

discussed above.

14. At the time of arguing learned counsel for IInd

party Mr. Shashi submits that Shri A.K. Tripathi is not

included as party therefore the reference cannot be

adjudicated. The order of reference is not challenged or set

aside. The legal position is settled that the reference

received by this Tribunal needs to be decided either way.

Therefore it is obligatory for me to decide the reference as

it is received. The evidence discussed above supports the

claim of workman that order of promotion were illegally

cancelled. Shri A.K. Tripathi was illegally given notional

seniority. The certificate issued by Kotma mines Exhibit

M-3 on 11-5-93 that Shri A.K. Tripathi was working at the

Store Korma Mines since 1984 to 1986. difference of wages

were paid to him is not supported by any orders at the

relevant time. The document Exhibit M-1 finds endorsement

in handwriting against name of Shri A.K. Tripathi appears

made subsequently. It does not substantiate contentions

of the management. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No. 1 in Negative.

15. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1

in Negative, the question arises as to what relief the

workman is entitled. The order of promotion of Ist party

workman to the post of Store Keeper Grade-I clerical Special

Grade dated 10-9-99 is cancelled as per order Exhibit W-7

dated 28-12-2000 and the workman was promoted as per

order Exhibit W-8 dated 26-1-01 from1-11-99. The order

Exhibit W-7 & 8 are illegal. The notional seniority given to

Shri A.K. Tripathi as per order dated 12-7-93 is illegal.

Therefore the order dated 28-12-2000 and 27-12-01 deserves

to be quashed and promotion of workman as per order

dated 10-9-99 needs to be confirmed. Accordingly I hold.

16. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of Chief General Manager, Jamuna

and Kotma Area of SECL in superseding Shri

Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Store Keeper by his

junior Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi in the case of

promotion of Store Keeper (Gr. I) and Sr. Store

Keeper (Special Grade) and not promoting him

at par with Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi is illegal.

(2)

Orders of cancellation of promotion of workman

dated 28-12-2000 and issuing fresh order of his

promotion dated 27-1-2001 are quashed. The

promotion of Ist party workman as per order

dated 10-9-99 on the post of Sr. Store Keeper

Special Grade is confirmed.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1958.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 131@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@40@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5149

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 131/2005 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Archaeological Survey of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2013.

[No. L-42012/40/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/131/2005

SHRI R.B. PATLE : PRESIDING OFFICER

Shri Ram Kishan,

Vill. Taapura,

Tehsil Budni

Distt. Sehore,

Madhya Pradesh

...Workman

VERSUS

The Superintendent Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

GTB Complex, T.T. Nagar,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 6-12-2005 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/

40/2005-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of Superintending

Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Ram Kishan

w.e.f. 23-1-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/2. The case of Ist party is that he was engaged

as chowkidar by IInd party in 1976. He was posted at

Archaeological department, Bhopal. He was continuously

working till 23-1-97. That management circulated letters

dated 26-8-85 invited all casual labors as per seniority for

regularization. The Ist party workman considered eligible

for said benefit approached to the management. He was

assured that his name was forwarded to higher authorities

for regularization of his services. That on such assurance,

he returned back. He thought that he will be regularized.

However on 23-1-97, his services were terminated without

assigning reasons in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act.

that principles of last come first go was not followed. On

such grounds, Ist party is requesting for reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to

10/4. The case of IInd party is that the engagement of Ist

party from 1976 is denied. It is denied that Ist party was

continuously working till 1997. According to IInd party,

workman worked only for 8 days in May 1976, 30 days in

June, 31 days in August and 30 days in September. He had

not completed 240 days service. He is not entitled to

protection of I.D. Act. He is not entitled for regularization.

All other contrary contentions of workman are denied. The

judgments in other cases are referred in the Written

Statement. IInd party submits that workman is not entitled

to reliefs prayed by him.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of

In Affirmative

Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological survey of India,

Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Kishan

w.e.f. 23-1-97 is legal

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

5. Though both the parties filed their statement of

claim and Written Statement, parties failed to participate in

the reference proceeding. No evidence is adduced by either

parties. As such workman has failed to substantiate his

contentions about illegality in terminating his services. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

The action of Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological survey of India, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Ram Kishan

w.e.f. 23-1-97 is legal.

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

5150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1959.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 218@1999½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@302@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 218/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/302/1998-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/218/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Secretary,

R.K.K.M.S (INTUC),

Pench Kanhan Area,

Camp Nandan Mine No. 2,

PO Nandan,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

....Workman/Union

VERSUS

General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area,

PO Dungaria,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 24-5-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/302/98/IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Kanhan Area i.e. General Manager, WCL, Kanhan

Area, PO Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not

giving promotion to Shri P. Modi, Head Clerk of

Nandan Mine No. 2 and giving promotion to his

juniors is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party Union submitted Statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/5. The case of 1st party Union is that

workman P. Modi is BA, he was appointed as Clerk Gr. III

on 16-1-74 at Damoh Colliery of WCL. He was confirmed

on 1-5-75. Mr. P. Modi was promoted from Gr. I on 1-5-76

vide order dated 21-6-76. That service conditions of the

employees are governed by National Coal Wage Agreement

signed by the employer and its functioning trade unions.

The cadre scheme for the promotion of the General Clerical

Cadre (2) Store Personnel Cadre, (3) Cash Personnel Cadre,

(4) Accounts Cadre, (5) Secretariate Cadre and (6) Loading,

Despatch and Sales Cadre. The Bipartite Agreement is

binding as per Section 18(1) of I.D. Act. the Selection of

candidates for filling vacancies in higher cadres is made

after recommendation of DPC constituted by Competent

Authority. The Union further submits that the management

intentionally adopted rigid view as Shri P. Modi was

concerned with Union activities. It is submitted that Shri

K.K. Sharma was granted promotion from Clerical grade-II

to Gr. I from 1-6-78 by Order dated 30-5-78 . Mr. Sharma is

junior to Mr. Modi. Though Mr. Modi was promoted in

Clerk Grade-II on 1-5-76, Sharma was promoted to clerical

Grade-II on 1-1-77, unmerited, promotion was given to Mr.

Sharma. Subsequently also Mr. Sharma was promoted

specially from Grade-I to Special Grade on 14-12-87 and

from Special Gr-II to P & S Grade on 4-6-95. Workman Mr.

Modi was promoted on 16-12-80 in Grade-I after various

representations.

The Union further submits that the management

shows favour, to Shri S.A. Joshi, K.K. Sharma regardless

of merit to defeat Mr. Modi refusing higher promotions to

him to clerical Special Grade. That vacancy for special Gr.

Clerk was notified by Area Personnel Manager, Kanhan on

1-2-87 for promotion. The departmental promotion

Committee was constituted. Name of workman Shri P.Modi

was at Sl. No.13 in the list. However he interview dated 10-

2-87 was postponed for the reasons that biodata and CRs

were not collected. It is alleged that modified office order

dated 9-4-87 was modified for written test on

19-4-87. The name of workman P. Modi was intentionally

omitted from the list. He was debarred from the test.

4. The Union further reiterates that Mr. K.K. Sharma,

S.S. Joshi were promoted and workman Modi denied

promotion. Though Sharma was junior, he was promoted.

That Mr. Joshi Accounts clerk was promoted in General

Cadre from Clerical Grade 1st to Special Grade on 1-8-85

and subsequently on the post of T & S Grade A in General

Cadre on 17-3-92 in violation of Rules of NCWA. That it is

alleged that management adopted pick and choose policy

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5151

ignoring the seniority and merit of Shri P. Modi. Hisamuddin

who had passed 8th standard was promoted to the post of

Special grade vide order dated 4-12-87. Details of the

appointments and promotions of P. Modi, K.K. Sharma,

S.S. Joshi and Hisamuddin are given in detail by 1st party

Union. Shri P. Modi was initially appointed on 16-1-74. Shri

K.K. Sharma on 1-10-75, S.S. Joshi on 24-1-74 & Hisamuddin

on 14-5-75. Hisamuddin passed 7th standard and all others

passed BA. Modi was promoted on 1-5-76 to Gr. II, K.K.

Sharma on 1-6-77, S.S. Joshi on 1-5-76 and Hisamuddin on

1-6-76. On such grounds, Union prays that P. Modi be

given promotion from the date Mr. Sharma and S.S. Joshi

were promoted.

5. IInd party management filed Written Statement

denying relief prayed by the Union. It is submitted that the

reference is not tenable as workman P. Modi is not member

of the RKKMS Union. That Mr. K.K. Sharma, S.S. Joshi

and Hisamuddin would be the aggrieved persons and as

such necessary party to the dispute, they are not included.

As such the terms of reference is vague. That IInd party is

registered under Indian Companies Act. The service

conditions of employees are covered by NCWA and

settlements. The cadre scheme formulated for promotion

of employees. The services of employees are also covered

by standing orders. That for purpose of promotions, post

of clerk Gr. III, Gr. II, Gr. I is on seniority cum merit basis.

The promotions from Gr. I to Special Gr. Clerk is on merit

cum seniority basis at area level. The allegation of the

promotion by favouratism are denied. That the workman

was appointed as Clerk Gr. III on 16-1-74, he was

confirmed on 1-5-75, he was promoted to clerk Gr. II on

1-5-76, that nomenclature, categorization are part of NCWA.

The Cadre scheme providing different cadres is not in

dispute. The criteria for promotion is laid down are

considered by DPC. The marks are given as per following

the criteria, performance CR-10 marks, seniority-5 marks,

Educational qualification-10 marks, for every completed

year, educational qualification-10 marks. The details about

Mr. K.K. Sharma, S.S. Joshi, P. Modi are given with respect

to their appointments in Clerical Gr. III, promotion Gr. II,

Gr-I Unit Special Grade Promotion Shri K.K. Sharma on

7-12-87, S.S. Joshi — 10-10-85. The contentions of Union

about discrimination or unmerited promotion given to Mr.

Sharma, S.S. Joshi are denied. It is submitted that reference

has been made as part of Union activities, necessary parties

re not impleaded. The workman was given promotion from

time to time whenever found eligible. He cannot compare

his case with K.K. Joshi, no adverse order can be passed

against him unless they are included as party to the dispute.

On such contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of claim

of the Union.

6. 1st party filed rejoinder reiterating his earlier

contentions that though Mr. Modi was senior, K.K. Joshi

and other employees were given unmerited promotions in

violation of the rules and regulations of NCWA.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

Action of

management of WCL, Kanhan

management is

Area i.e. General Manager, WCL,

not legal.

Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) in not giving

promotion to Shri P. Modi, Head

Clerk of Nandan Mine No. 2 and

giving promotion to his juniors is

legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Union is not

entitled to?"

entitled to relief

prayed.

REASONS

8. Union has initiated reference proceeding

advocating case of Shri P. Modi Head Clerk working in

Nandan Mine . It is alleged that though Mr. Modi is senior

to Shri K.K. Sharma and Shri Joshi, he was discriminated.

He was not promoted to the clerk Special Grade. Mr.

Sharma and Shri S.L. Joshi were granted unmerited

promotions to clerk Gr.I Special Grade and T&S Grade.

IInd party management denied those allegation of the

Union. The affidavit is filed by Shri P. Modi himself. He

has covered most of the facts pleaded in Statement of claim

filed by Union. He has also stated new facts about

promotion granted to Mr. Gupta in Special Grade in 1975.

That in 1987 DPC was constituted for promotion for the

post of Clerk Special Gr. His name was included in the list

but the interview was cancelled for some reasons. His name

was not appearing in the next list prepared on 9-4-87. He

was not called for interview. That Mr. P. Parvesh Pankti

was promoted to clerk Gr-I on 21-9-90. He was given

unmerited promotion. One Ram Kumar Srivas Clerk was

also given promotion on 12-9-90.

9. In his cross-examination, workman says that he

was working as Head Clerk but there is no discrimination

of Head Clerk. The discrimination is Sr. Clerk Special

Grade. That there was no prescribed time limit for

promotion to Clerk Gr. II. After cadre scheme was

introduced, the promotion from General Mazdoor to

Gr. II, 3 year working is made necessary It is denied that

6 years time limit is prescribed. He was granted promotion

to Clerk Gr-II considering his performance of work. The

employees with whom he compares were not promoted

considering nature of the job. That Shri S.L. Joshi was

promoted alongwith him on 1-5-76 considering nature of

job. The witness denies suggestion that he was granted

promotion as management was pleased with him. That for

promotion, seniority is required to be considered. That he

has grievance about promotion to clerk Grade-I. In 1979,

5152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he had raised the point of promotion of Clerk Gr. I but he

has no evidence about it. That he has no dispute about

promotion to clerical Grade-II. That he has document about

work of typing. The witness agreed to produce it on record

but no documents are produced by the witness that

promotion of Gr-I was on unit basis. The witness agrees

that comparison of promotion of employees in other unit is

not proper. That from Grade-I to Special Grade, promotion

were after introduction of Cadre Scheme. Shri S.L. Joshi

and K.K. Sharma were appointed after him. Therefore he

considered senior to them. That Shri S.L. Joshi was

promoted alongwith him therefore he has no dispute about

it. The witness denied that basis for promotion is seniority

cum merit. Again says that for promotion, merit cum

seniority is the basis. The entire evidence does not show

how he is denied promotions after introduction of the Cadre

Scheme. The evidence of Shri P. Modi that his name was

included in the list for interview by DPC in 1987 is not

supported by any document, evidence of witness on above

point cannot be accepted. The witness has no grievance

about promotion of Shri S.L. Joshi, he has no grievance

about promotion to Clerk Grade-I. The entire evidence of

workman does not spell out illegality committed by the

management. In 1987, workman was not called for interview

for promotion to Clerk Special Grade.

10. The evidence of management's witness Shri Arun

Khobragade is simply in nature of denial of the allegation

of workman. In his cross- examination, he did not remember

whether Mr. Modi was senior to Shri K.K. Sharma and S.L.

Joshi, Shri Joshi was appointed in 1975, Modi was

appointed in 1974. Considering their subsequent

promotions to clerk Grade-I, the claim of Shri Modi about

his seniority cannot be accepted. Besides above, Mr. Modi

claims that he was senior to Shri K.K. Sharma and S.L.

Joshi, they were granted promotions, they are not included

as parties. In their absence, the claim of 1st party workman

cannot be accepted. For above reasons, I hold my finding

in Point No.1 that action of the management of IInd party is

not proved illegal.

11. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

Union is not entitled to relief prayed by them. Accordingly

I record my finding in Point No. 2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of WCL, Kanhan

Area i.e. General Manager, WCL, Kanhan Area,

PO Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not

giving promotion to Shri P. Modi, Head Clerk

of Nandan Mine No. 2 and giving promotion

to his juniors as alleged is not proved illegal.

(2)

Relief prayed by Union are rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1960.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l bZ lh

,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 124@1995½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@263@1995&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 124/

1996) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of SECL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/263/1995-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/124/96

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The President,

NCWF Union,

Rajnagar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

General Manager,

SECL, Hasdeo Area,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30^th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 2-5-96 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/263/95-IR . (CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

" Whether the demand No. 2, 9, 10 & 23 raised by the

Mahanadi Colliery Workers Federation vide their

strike notice dated 12-12-93 against the management

of SECL ( Hasdeo Area) are legal and justified? If so,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5153

what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices issued to parties.

1st party Union filed statement of claim at Page 4/1 to 4/

13. The Union had issue strike notice dated 17-12-93 raising

various demands. The Demand No. 2, 9, 10, 23 were not

settled in conciliation, failure report was submitted and

the reference is made by the Central Govt. Demand No. 2

of the Union was relating to the employees suffering from

disablement excluding certain decisions are referred to the

Medical Board. The Union demanded that employees

requested be referred for Medical Examination to the

Board. The Union has given reasons for justification of

the said demand. That screening Committee constituted

by the management for sending to the medical Board is

not necessary. Demand No. 9 of the Union related to T.T.

Munshi paid 1 hour overtime charging allowance. However

in Jhagrakhand, Palki, Maada, Bijuri and other incline, it

be made 1 hour overtime charging allowance be paid to

them. The Union has given reasons for decision of the said

demand. Demand No. 10 of the Union related to that the

security guard be allowed pay protection while fixing their

pay and arrears be paid. Demand No. 23 related to the

ladies peon working in Regional Office and other office

were paid salary of Cat-I is legal. The Union demanded

that all ladies be appointed as lady peon and regularized

their services and arrears be paid.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/4 opposing demands of Union. With respect to the

demand No. 2 it is submitted that provisions of NCWA

regarding employment is available. The employment to one

dependent of worker is permanently disabled. The

disablement should arise from injury or disease, be of a

permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it

should be so certified by the coal company concerned. In

case of disablement arising out of general physical disability

so certified by coal company concerned, not arising out of

injury or disease as in para(i) above, the concerned

employee will be eligible for the benefit under this clause

of the employee is upto the age of 58 years.

4. That the Chairman and Specialist doctors are

included in Screening committee. The Medical Board after

examining declares worker fit or unfit. The appeal is

provided against decision of the Medical Board. IInd party

also opposed the other demands of the Union for different

reasons and prayed for rejection of' demands of Union.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the demand No. 2, 9, 10

In Negative

& 23 raised by the Mahanadi

Colliery Workers Federation vide

their strike notice dated 12-12-93

against the management of SECL

( Hasdeo Area) are legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

Union is rejected.

REASONS

6. Though the Union submitted statement of claim

supporting Demands No. 2, 9, 10, 23 as per strike notice

dated 17-12-93. The Union failed to adduce evidence in

support of its demands. Inspite of repeated chances allowed

to union, no evidence is adduced in support of the demands.

7. Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri

Anjani Sharan supporting the management's claim that

demands of the Union are not justified. The witness has

reproduced provisions of NCWA- 9.4.3(i) relating to

employment to dependent of the workman permanently

disabled. That Labour force of 7 lakh workers is working

in Coal Industry. That reasonable guidelines are issued in

the matter of disablement and disease classified for

disablement include major disease like cancer, paralysis,

Heart disease etc. That demand No. 9 of Union for giving

one hour overtime to Tubwriter is opposed. That it is denied

that T.T. Munshi has to explain entire picture of work done,

the proposed work security measures to be taken, handover

the charges etc. Rest of the demands are also opposed by

witness giving different reasons. The evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged.

Management's witness was not cross-examined.

8. The Union has not participated in the reference

proceeding though the evidence is adduced. Management

witness is not cross-examined. There is no evidence to

establish justification for Demand No. 2, 9, 10&23 of

Union. Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in

Negative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Demand No. 2, 9, 10 & 23 of Union in Strike

Notice dated 12-12- 93 against the management

of SECL are not legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by Union is rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1961.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@1933½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@5@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

5154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/1993)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of SECL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/5/1993-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/93

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

National Colliery Workers Federation,

PO South Jhagrakhand Colliery,

Distt. Surguja

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

Sub Area Manager,

Jhagrakhand R.O.,

PO West Jhagrakhand Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of July, 2013

1. As Per letter dated 30-4-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

22012/5/93-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of Sub Area Manager,

Jhagrakhand Sub Area of SECLtd., Hasdeo Area of

SECL in terminating the services of the employees

named in the Annexure w.e.f January 1989 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union filed statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/6. The case of Ist party workman is that workmen

shown in Annexure were employed with West Jhagrakhand

Colliery in Coal Handling Plant. Subsequently all such

workers in May 1986 were transferred to B. Seem Colliery.

After their transfer to B.Seem Colliery in May, 1986, they

were posted for underground work carrying all mining

operations including tub-loading. They were paid salary

of General Mazdoor Cat-I under the NCWA-III & IV. The

payments were made to all such workers directly by the

company. The supervision of the work was also performed

by the supervisors deployed by the company.

3. The management shown artificial contractor in the

name of one Mr. Ramlal. Ramlal according to management

was contractor who was deploying the aforesaid persons.

That Ramlal was never a contractor and has never obtained

licence under provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition)Act, 1970. He himself was employee

working along with all the workmen shown in the Annexure

to the terms of reference. The management for purpose of

paying salary of employees was preparing two different

bills. One was shown in the name of the contractor Mr.

Ramlal and another bill was prepared by management as

per NCWA-II & III for Category I Mazdoor. The salary

prepared by NCWA was signed by Manager. However bill

pertaining to M.W.Act was in name of Ramlal alleged

contractor. The bill was signed by the pay clerk of the

management. It is alleged that it was an artificial name

which was shown by the management of Shri Ramlal though

he was never a contractor. Before sending all such workers

to perform underground work, the management had given

training to all such workers which is termed as Vocational

Training. The certificate of passing such training to each

workman were issued by the management. After all such

workers completed training, they were sent to underground

work by management.

4. That work performed by employees was of

perennial nature, the work of tub loading and other work as

prescribed under NCWA. Since 1986 till termination of

employees in January 1989 continued to pay salary to those

employees. That the workman submitted representation

dated 1-3-87 claiming salary as per NCWA to Category - I

& II General Mazdoor. The management got annoyed and

stopped them from working . The matter was represented

by those workers to Chief General Manager,

Shri P.N. Mathur of Hasdeo Area, SECL. He had directed

Sub Area Manager, B.Seem Colliery to allow workers to

perform their duty. In consequence to the same, the Sub

Area Manager again continued them in service till January

1989. They have completed 240 days continuous service

preceding their termination. It is further submitted that all

those workers were no paid retrenchment compensation,

they were not served with notice or salary in lieu of notice

was not paid. Their services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Those persons had worked for

more than 190 days in the calendar year and acquired status

of regular employees. Instead of regularising services,

terminated the services of workman. It amounts to illegal

retrenchment. On such grounds, it is prayed that the

employees be reinstated with consequential benefits.

5. Management filed Written Statement at Page 5/1

to 5/4. Claim of Union is denied. It is submitted that SECL is

a company registered under the Companies Act.

The company has various collieries in the State of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5155

Madhya Pradesh. West Jhagrakhand Colliery and B.Seem

Colliery are two different collieries in the Jhagrakhand Sub

Area of Hasdeo Area. Management has right to engage

contract labour for various jobs other than the prohibited

categories as notified by the Central Government. Ramlal

contractor engaged some workers for carrying the contract

work awarded to him on 3-5-86. The workers were never

engaged by management of IInd party. There is no employer

employee relationship. That names of 3 persons Chhotelal,

Naval Singh and Babulal Singh are also appearing in

R/235/90 at Sl.No.11, 53 & 5. Therefore claims of those

persons are not tenable.

6. That Chhotelal S/o Sonsai has filed affidavit in

R/235/90 claiming that he was employed in West

Jhagrakhand Colliery from 1984 to 1989. If he was so

employed in Jhagrakhand colliery, he cannot claim that he

was in employment of B.Seem colliery during the same

period. The workers in reference are engaged by

contractors. They cannot be members of Union. Union is

not entitled to expose their case. All material contentions

of Union that persons were working as employee of B-

Seem Colliery, West Jhagrakhand Colliery is denied. IInd

party prays for rejection of the claim of Union. It is further

denied that employees have completed 240 days service

preceding their termination, violation of provision of

I.D.Act is denied. It is contended that those persons were

engaged by contractor, they are not employees of the

management of IInd party, therefore those persons are not

entitled to any relief.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

“(i) Whether the action of Sub

Termination of

Area Manager, Jhagrakhand

services

employees

Sub Area of SECLtd., Hasdeo

by management of

Area of SECL in terminating

IInd Party is not

the services of the employees proved.

named in the Annexure w.e.f.

January 1989 is legal.?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed Ist Party

workman is entitled to?”

are rejected.

REASONS

8. 1st party Union filed affidavit of evidence of Dauli,

S/o Chaitu. He has stated that he was initially engaged by

West Jhagrakhand Colliery in Coal handling plant during

1983-84. He along with others, name shown in schedule

were transferred to B-Seem colliery in 1986. He has stated

that the was working underground mine. His work was

suspended by Supervisor of management. He was carrying

work of loading, drilling , timbering of roof, line work etc.

The work is of perennial nature. The workers who were

performing work were given salary of Category II as per

NCWA, Sub Area Manager stopped him work. Then the

matter was represented to Chief General Manager of Hasdeo

Area who directed Sub Area Manager to allow them to

perform the duties. That he was continuously working in

B-Seem colliery since May, 1986 to Jan.1989. His services

were not regularized as per the settlements. His services

were terminated w.e.f. Feb. 1989. In his cross-examination

workman says he knows Ramlal, he had not employed them.

He was co-employee with them. That no appointment letter

was given to him. He had received order of transfer but

order is not with him. Total 8 persons were working with

him. That the document about their working was prepared

in the office of Ilnd party. The charges were shown in the

name of Shri Ramlal. The wages were paid through them.

Work was extracted from him of rehandling and stacking of

stones,

bills

were

prepared

clerk

Mr. Mishra. No document was given to him about

termination of his services by IInd party. Shri Chhotelal

and Naval Singh have filed separate reference. They were

Union members. They have accepted membership of other

Union. That Ramlal was not educated person. He was

putting thumb marks.

9. Identical affidavit of witness Shyam Sundar is filed

by Union. In his cross-examination, Shyam Sunder says

his age was 39 years. That clerk from office of IInd party

was maintaining their attendance. He did not remember his

name. Monthly wages were paid to them by the clerk in

office. He did not recollect his name. His wage bill was

prepared in name of Shri Ramlal and the wages were paid to

them Rs. 25 per day. He did not receive any letter about

termination of his service. He had not received order of

transfer to B-Seem Colliery. He was member of the Union

led by Mr. Sharma. He was paying membership fees Rs. 25 per

month. Third identical affidavit is filed by Shri Chain Sai. In

his cross-examination, said witness has stated that he was

appointed in 1986. He had not submitted application to the

management. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He was not interviewed. He had

not received appointment letter. He was working in Coal

handling plant, underground mines etc. 12 labours were

working in underground mine. They had applied for getting

appointment letters. Shri Ramlal was paid wages, they have

not availed any leave. He worked continuously from 1986

to 1989. Mr. Saini was maintaining the attendance. The

evidence of witnesses shows that Mr. Ramlal alleged

contractor was illiterate. He was putting thumb impression.

10. The management filed affidavit of witnesses

N.P.Saini. He has claimed that Ramlal was engaged as

contractor. The work prescribed in Document-2(ii) was for

re-handling, stacking of stones .The contractor Ramlal had

completed the work within 14 days. Other contention about

transfer of employees are denied. Shri S.M.Mukherjee,

Ranjit Kumar Das supported claim of management that

Ramlal was engaged as contractor for different types of

work. The documents are prepared. Applicant was not

5156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

doing job of tub repairing, restacking stones. Evidence in

cross-examination of Shri Ranjit Kumar Das shows that his

office is not in mines campus. That he never goes to mines

underground. He couldnot tell the details of the labours

working. The list of contractors remains with the Office

Superintendent. The bills were submitted to the cash

department. He claims ignorance how many labours were

working during 1986 to 1989 with contractor Ramlal. If

evidence is carefully appreciated, the witnesses of Union

have deposed that the wages were paid to Ramlal in

presence of the Supervisor/ clerk of the management. The

documents about wage bills to the contractor are produced

on record by the management. The evidence adduced by

the Union is not sufficient to hold that contract was

camouflage. The evidence is not cogent that those persons

were working under supervision and control of the

management of IInd party and alleged so called was

contractor. The employee-employer relationship between

those persons and management of IInd party is not

established. Therefore those persons cannot be said

employee of the management of IInd party. The evidence

is not cogent that their services are terminated by

management of IInd party. 1st party has not produced Form

B, attendance register and therefore their claim cannot be

accepted. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

11. Point No.2— In view of my finding in Point No.1,

1st party is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No. 2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:—

Management of IInd party has not terminated

services of 1st party. Persons shown in Annexure

are not employed by IInd Party.

Relief prayed for reinstatement is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1962.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 115@1998½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@194@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/

1998) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Anexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of FCI and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19.08.2013

[No. L-22012/194/1997-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/115/98

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

General Secretary,

FCI Workers Union, 7901,

Ramnagar, Nai Basti,

Paharganj, New Delhi.

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

Sr. Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Jaipur,

Rajasthan

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 11-6-1998 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/194/97/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the Sr.Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Jaipur in not regularizing/

departmentalizing 73 contract labour working at Food

Storage Depot, Ranthambhore, Sawaimadhopur at

par with Buffer Complex, Sawaimadhopur in

implementation of Ministry of Labour, Government

of India's Notification No. 509 dated 7-9-90 is fair and

just? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled and from what date?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party Union submitted statement of claim at

page 2/1 to 2/6. The case of 1st party Union is that it is a

registered Union affiliated to INTUC bearing No. 42020.

That at its instruction reference is made by the Central

Government It is submitted that the Government of India

vide Notification No. 509 dated 7-9-90 prohibited

employment of contract labours in godowns and depots of

FCI in process, operation of work of handling of food

grains, including their loading and unloading from any

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5157

means, transport, storing etc. at Food Storage Depot, FCI

Buffer Complex, Rajasthan. 1st party Union submits that

immediately on publication of said notification, the

management implemented direction of the Central Govt.

The Food Storage Depot Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur

and Buffer Complex at Sawaimadhopur are part and parcel

of same complex of the management. The Non-applicant

management engaged contractors, same workers were

working in both the units without demarcation. It is

submitted by 1st party union that 73 contract workers

working at Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur are also entitled

to the benefit of Government's Notification dated 7- 9-90.

They are entitled to departmentalization. The authorities

of FCI have not properly interpreted. On such ground, it is

prayed that 73 employees be departmentalized/regularized

at Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to

3/12. The claim of 1st party Union is denied. IInd party did

not dispute Notification issued by Central Govt.

dt. 7-9-90 prohibiting employment of contract Labours in

godowns and depots of FCI . IInd party submits that Food

Storage Depot of FCI Buffer Complex have been included

in the Schedule. That the Food Storage Depot of

Sawaimadhopur is not included in the said Notification by

Govt. The reference is made mechanically without proper

consideration. It is further submitted that FCI is a

Government of India Undertaking. It is bound to act in

accordance with the directions, instructions and circulars

issued from time to time by the Central Govt. It is further

submitted that usually FCI appoints handling and transport

contractors at various depots. The FCI has not

administrative economic control over the contract labours.

In para-6 of the Written Statement, the details of the Food

Storage Depots and Buffer Complexes of Rajasthan are

given. Buffer Complex, Sawaimadhopur is shown at

Sl. No.II and Ranthambore, at Sl. No. X. The substance of

the pleadings of II nd party is Food Storage Sawaimadhopur

is not covered in the Notification issued by the Central

Government In para-12, the contractors working at different

period are shown. Contract system has been abolished only

in specified depots of FCI. In such depot, the contract

system is still, prevailing. That on 30-5-95, workers Union

in FCI shall notice raising certain demand including

abolition of contract system in remaining depots. While

serving such notice, the Union informed the management

if the matter is not sorted out by 14-6-85, the worker will

start hunger strike.

4. The Union agreed that question of work load for

abolition of the contract labour in Food Corporation of

India depot on the whole and recommending norms for the

same shall be referred to the Central Advisory Contract

Labour Board. Contract labours are still continuing at Food

Storage Depot Ranthambore. As Government has not issued

notification prohibiting contract labour in contract labour

system in Food Storage Depot, Ranthambore, the IInd party

submits that demand of Union is not acceptable. IInd party

prays for rejection of claim of workman.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

“(i) Whether the action of the

Sr.Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Jaipur

in not regularizing/

In Affirmative

departmentalizing 73 contract

labour working at Food

Storage Depot,

Ranthambhore,

Sawaimadhopur at par with

Buffer Complex,

sawaimadhopur in

implementation of Ministry

of Labour, Government of

India's Notification No. 509

dated 7-9-90 is legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

6. The substance of pleadings of Union is that they

are claiming departmentalization/ regularization of contract

labour at Food Storage Depot, Ranthambore,

Sawaimadhopur as per Notification issued by Central Govt.

dated 7-9-90. The witness of 1st party Pramod Kumar

Nayak filed affidavit of his evidence covering most of the

contentions of the Union. That the Food Storage Depot of

FCI at Ranthambore, is covered in said Notification. That

Sawaimadhopur

contract

labours

were

not

departmentalized/regularized. The contractors are still

continued to work. That both the Food Storage Depot as

well as the Buffer Complex at Sawaimadhopur are

functionally and operationally been inseparable. To have a

correct interpretation the head line as well as entry at page

2 should be read together and this leads to the clear

conclusion that the depot at Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur

as well as the Buffer Complex are to be departmentalized

as per the agreement. In his cross-examination, witness of

1st party says that Government of India has power to issue

Notification whether contract labour should continue or

not. The department itself decides as per the agreement.

The Buffer Complex units at Sawaimadhopur. The Food

Storage Depot is at about a distance of 5-7 kms at

Ranthambore. He was unable to tell whether the storage

capacity at Buffer Storage complex, Sawaimadhopur is

80,000 MT. The witness of 1st party admitted that storage

capacity at Ranthambore is 11,220 MT. The Notification

Exhibit M-1 is not stating that contract labours should be

prohibited and the contract labour should be

5158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

departmentalized, such details are used to be mentioned in

the agreements. He has stated about the different names

included in the Notification issued by Central Govt.

Ranthambore is not mentioned in said Notification. Witness

submits that it comes under Sawaimadhopur. In para-23 of

his evidence, the witness says that there are separate

Manager at Sawaimadhopur Complex and Ranthambore

Depot. That he has not seen any document whether who is

Controlling Authority at Sawaimadhopur and Food Storage

Depots, Buffer Complex.

7. The evidence of management's witness

Shri J. C. Meena is devoted on the point that the Food

Storage Depot at Ranthambore is not covered in

Notification dated 7-9-90 issued by the Central Government.

In his cross-examination, the management's witness has

stated about different depots at Jhalawar, Bhawani Mandi,

Bundi, Keshav Rai, Buffer Complex etc. From cross-

examination of the witness of the IInd party, though nothing

is illicited that Food Storage Depot at Ranthambore is

included in Notification issued by Central Govt. The

Notification is produced at Exhibit M-2. Its annexure for

Rajasthan finds Sawaimadhopur ( Buffer Complex). Its clear

reading shows that Notification is restricted to Buffer

Complex, Sawaimadhopur. The evidence that Food Storage

Depot Ranthambore is included in Sawaimadhopur cannot

be accepted. It if would have been the case that Buffer

Complex, Sawaimadhopur as well as Food Storage Depot

at Ranthambore included in notification, there would have

been a comma, between Sawaimadhopur and Buffer

Complex but it is seen that Buffer Complex is bracketed.

Thus Sawaimadhopur and Buffer Complex are not used

separately. For above reasons, the claim of 1st party Union

cannot be accepted. The action of the management of FCI

cannot be said illegal. Therefore 1 record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Affirmative. In view of my finding in Point

No.1, the Union is not entitled for reliefs of regularization

of 73 contract labours. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the Sr. Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Jaipur in not regularizing/

departmentalizing 73 contract labour working at

Food Storage Depot, Ranthambhore,

Sawaimadhopur at par with Buffer Complex,

Sawaimadhopur in implementation of Ministry

of Labour, Government of India's Notification

No. 509 dated 7-9-90 is legal.

(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1963.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 216@1999½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@295@1998&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II)]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 216/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of FCI and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/295/1998-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/216/1999

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Rajkumar,

S/o Shri Rajratnam,

C/o N.S. Korri, Kappa Ladhi Para,

PO Kopa, Raipur (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

Distt. Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Distt. Office Raipur (MP) ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 23-5-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/295/98-IR(CM-ID). The dispute under

reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Distt.

Manager, FCI, Raipur in dismissing Shri Raj Kumar

S/o Rajnartan Ex-Watchman from service vide order

No. V&S/4/RK/WM/86 dated 31-3-86 is justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/6. The case of 1st party workman is that he

was appointed as watchman against permanent post in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5159

1976 at FCI, Distt. Kapa, Raipur. He was served with

showcause notice dated 21-1-82 why disciplinary action

should not be taken against him. Chargesheet was issued

against Regulation 60 of the Food Corporation of India

Staff Regulation 1971. The delinquent workman submitted

reply denying the charges totally. That he had not committed

theft neither there was motive for committing theft or

causing loss to the FCI. Further pleadings is devoted about

enquiry was conducted against delinquent, he was permitted

to cross-examine the witness. As enquiry held against

delinquent is found legal, the pleadings are not given in

detail. That order of punishment of dismissal was passed

on 31-3-1986. The delinquent had challenged the said order

of dismissal filing appeal. His appeal was rejected without

giving reasons. 1st party workman further submits that the

Appellate Authority rejected appeal without applying his

mind whether the punishment is excessive or dis-

proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. 1st party

submits that enquiry was vitiated on different parts. That

witnesses of the Corporation were not free, they were under

pressure. That he was dismissed from service for theft of

wheat whereas the charge against him was about theft of

rice. The FIR was lodged against him. He was prosecuted

before Addnl. CGM, Raipur in criminal case for offence

under Section 380/34 of I.P.C. He was acquitted on

6-1-92, the prosecution failed to establish the case against

him.

3. Ist party further submits that order of dismissal

filed by Disciplinary Authority is legal. The workman has

referred to ratio in various cases as he is acquitted on the

same set of facts and charge. The order of punishment of

dismissal is illegal. The punishment is imposed by way of

victimization. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with full back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/

9. Workman did not dispute his appointment in 1976 but

not on permanent post. Issue of chargesheet conducting

enquiry is not disputed by the IInd party. That first

chargesheet was issued under Regulation 60 subsequently

amended chargesheet was issued on 19-5-82 under

Regulation 58 of FCI Staff Regulation 1971. The charges

against workman were unlawfully entering in FCI premises

Kapa on 17-4-82, IInd physically assaulting the duty

watchman and further insulting other fellow watchman who

tried to prevent the physical assault and theft of rice. The

charges were denied. Enquiry officer was appointed, during

enquiry, witnesses of department were cross-examined.

Appeal filed by delinquent employee was rejected on merit.

5. The contentions of workman of disproportionate

punishment are denied. It is submitted that considering

merits and findings of Enquiry Officer, gravity of allegation,

punishment of dismissal was imposed. It is reiterated that

the delinquent workman was given opportunity to cross-

examine the witnesses. The enquiry was conducted

following rules and regulations. It is denied that the

punishment of dismissal was imposed by way of

victimization. The prosecution witnesses were free from

any kind of pressure, they were paid DA. It was

typographical error in order of punishment inspite of rice,

it is typed as whet, a corrigendum was issued on 3-3-98, it

was acknowledged by the delinquent. All other contentions

of 1st party are denied. It is denied that delinquent workman

had not committed any misconduct. IInd party prayed for

rejection of relief prayed by workman.

6. 1st party filed rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/2 denying

all adverse contentions of management of IInd party. He

has reiterated his earlier contentions and prays for his

reinstatement. Enquiry is found legal as per order dated

5-3-2013. The remaining issues framed on 24-10-07—

whether the management is entitled to prove misconduct

of workman has become redundant as the enquiry

conducted against workman is found legal. The evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings requires to be examined therefore

appropriate issue is as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the alleged mis-

In Affirmative

conduct against workman is

proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings or findings of

Enquiry Officer are perverse?

(ii) Whether punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal of workman is

proper and legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the

Relief rejected

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. As stated above, enquiry held against workman is

found legal. As per order dated 5-3-2013. The next question

is whether the finding of Enquiry Officer are supported by

evidence or findings are perverse. The evidence of

witnesses Shri Sukhlal Verma Head Constable, Shyamlal

Constable No. 321, Dadani Shukla Constable No.748, Suresh

Anand Constable No. 289, Shivkaran Singh Constable No.

389 is recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. Those witnesses

of the management have stated that on 12-1-1982, they

were on night duty. When they reached near MSD godown,

No.71, they heard a noise from the godown, witness Sukhlal

says they saw a man in white clothes in darkness, when

they reached near the person about 10 yards, they flashed

torch light and asked who were there. On question, they

had seen two more persons by side of godown, one

Rajkumar , second Shri Chotu Ram and Raju. On enquiry,

Shri Rajkumar told him that one is his brother and other is

his brother-in-law. There were two bicycles in front of gate

laden with one cutta each of Rice weighing above 50 Kgs

each. He took all three persons along with cycle to their

camp and he informed Branch Manager and called him to

5160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the camp. Branch Manager along with Section officer

reached at camp. He deposited the rice stock and cycle

with Manager and obtained receipt. The evidence of those

witnesses is consistent that two cutta basmati rice was

found on the bicycles. The delinquent employee and 2

other persons were found with them. Their evidence is not

shattered in his cross-examination. Witness No.1 Sukhlal

Verma in his cross-examination says that his duty was from

6 to 12 P.M. The entire stocks within the boundary were in

his charge. Wherever necessary, they are free to move.

Witness No. 2 Shyamlal Singh in his cross-examination

says that he did not remember the number of the godown.

On his enquiry, Rajkumar himself told his name and he was

watchman of FCI. That he had seen rice in front of godown.

The cross-examination of further witnesses did not bring

anything to disbelieve in the evidence. The charges against

delinquent are proved from evidence of those witness of

the management.

8. At the time of argument, learned counsel for

workman Mr. Sharma heavily argued that the charge was

for theft of rice and order of punishment was issued for

theft of wheat. Above argument cannot be accepted in

view that corrigendum was issued in the year 1988 in

punishment order was corrected rice for wheat. There is no

satisfactory evidence in that regard. When chargesheet

was issued for theft of rice and evidence was also recorded

about rice, the use of word Wheat in he punishment order

may be typographical error as pleaded by Ilnd party.The

evidence is Enquiry Proceeding is sufficient to prove

misconduct alleged against the delinquent workman. The

findings of enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

9. Point No. 2- whether punishment of dismissal of

workman is disproportionate. The learned counsel for 1st

party workman Shri Sharma during course of argument

referred that chargesheet was initially issued against

Regulation 60 of chargesheet for minor punishment.

However the amended chargesheet was issued in 1982

under Regulation 58 was not in dispute during enquiry

proceedings. On the point of disproportionate punishment,

learned counsel for 1st party Sharma relies on ratio held in

"Case of Bhagat Ram Versus State of Himachal

Pradesh and others reported in 1983(2) Supreme Court

cases 442. Their Lordship held punishment must be

proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, dismissal

on a trivial charge of negligence which resulted in no

loss to the department held disproportionate and

excessive."

In above cited case, the appellant was a Forest guard,

the charges were of causing loss of Government,

negligence in Govt. duty, doubtful honesty. In enquiry, it

was found that out of the 21 trees, 17 were in forest land

and 4 were in the private land of "k". "k" paid compensation

for the illegal felling of trees stating that he felled the trees

bonafide believing that the trees were standing on his

private land.

The facts of the present case are not comparable

with the case at hand. In the present case, all management

witnesses found delinquent and his brother, brother-in-

law in the dark. The 2 cuttas of Basmati were laiden on

bicycle. The incident was reported following by chargesheet

and the domestic enquiry was conducted. The charges are

proved. The delinquent workman was the security guard

in godown of IInd party. Committing theft by security guard

who were on duty to guard the godown of FCI is a very

serious misconduct. The misconduct cannot be said

negligence in duty. Therefore the ratio in above cited case

cannot be applied to case at hand.

Next reliance is placed by counsel for 1st party

Mr. Shashi on ratio held in

"Case of Shri B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India

reported in 1995 (5)-SLR 1178. Ratio held by the

Lordship is judicial review is not an appeal from a

decision but a review of the manner in which the

decision is made. In para-13 of the judgment, their

Lordship observed that the Disciplinary Authority

is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented,

the appellate authority has no extensive power to re-

appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment.

In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal

evidence and finding on that evidence are not

relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of

evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before

the Court/Tribunal."

The ratio held in the case does not support the case

of 1st party workman. In view of evidence of all the 5

witnesses of the department is consistent that the

delinquent workman, his brother and brother-in-law

were found with 2 cuttas of wheat laiden on bicycle.

The evidence of the witnesses of the management

does not call for re-appreciation.

"Next reliance is placed in case of Shri Shankar Dass

Versus union of India and another reported in 1985(2)

Supreme Court Cases 358. Their Lordship held the

power under Article 311(2) second proviso (a) like

every other power, has to be exercised fairly, justly

and reasonably. Government should apply its mind

to the penalty which could appropriately be imposed

in so far as the service career of the delinquent

employee is concerned. However he may not be

entitled to be heard on the question of penalty in

view of clause (a) of the second proviso which makes

Article 311(2) inapplicable."

In above cited case, the workman was convicted but

extended benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. While

extending such benefit, the magistrate had observed that

the workman was victim of adverse circumstances, his son

died in, 1962, which was followed by another misfortune,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5161

his wife fell down from an upper storey and was seriously

injured, it was then the turn of his daughter who fell

seriously ill and that illness lasted for eight months. The

learned Magistrate concluded his judgment as- Misfortune

dogged the accused for about a year and it seems that it

was under the force of adverse circumstances that he held

back the money in question."

The fact of present case are not comparable. 1st party

workman was acquitted by criminal court on 30-1-92 as the

prosecution failed to produce the witnesses. However in

Departmental Enquiry, statements of 5 witnesses were

recorded. Therefore the ratio held in the case cannot be

applied to the present case at hand. When theft of rice is

committed by delinquent workman along with his relatives

in godown where he was in duty as watchman, the

punishment of dismissal may be not be said

disproportionate. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Distt. Manager,

FCI, Raipur in dismissing Shri Raj Kumar S/o

Rajnartan Ex-Watchman from service vide order

No. V&S/4/RK/WM/86 dated 31-3-86 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1964.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@41@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of NLC Registred Contractor, GP

Nagar, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/41/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 1st August, 2013

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 76/2013

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of M/s. Thirumurugan

Enterprises, Contractor and M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corpn.

Ltd. And their workman]

BETWEEN

Sri S. Ulaganadhan

: Petitioner/1st Party

AND

1. M/s. Thirumurugan Enterprises :Respondent/1st Party

NLC Registered Contractor

GP Nagar, Periyakurichi

Neyveli-607802

2. The Chief General Manager

: Respondent/2nd Party

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.

Mine-II, Neyveli-607802

Appearance

For the lst Party/Petitioner

M/s. V. Padmini, D.

Lakshmipaty,

Advocates

For the 1st & 2nd Party/

None

Management

ORDER

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-22012/41/2013IR (CM-II)

dated 30.05.2013 referred the Industrial Dispute between

the above referred parties for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Thirumurugan Enterprises, Contractor of NLC

Limited denying employment to Sri S. Ulaganadhan

in the same place (SMD Department Mines-II) is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 76/2013.

3. When the case came up for hearing on this date it

was brought to my notice that the issue to be decided in ID

52/2013 directly filed by the petitioner and pending before

this Tribunal is the same as in this case. The counsel for

the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the petitioner is

intending to proceed with ID 52/2013 filed directly by him

only and that this ID can be closed.

5162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. I have perused the file of this case and also the file

of 52/2013 which also came up for hearing on this date. I

find that the issue to be decided in both is one and the

same. So there is no hindrance in closing this ID.

5. Accordingly, the present reference is struck off

from the file of this Tribunal with eventual consignment of

the records to the preserving section and it is so ordered.

6. A copy of this order will be incorporated in ID 52/

2013. A copy of this order will also be forwarded to the

Ministry of Labour and Employment for favour of

information.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 1st August, 2013)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1965.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,y ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2004½

dks izdkf'kd djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@122@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 11/2004 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Orient Area, Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/122/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: SHRI J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 11/2004

Date of Passing Award — 30th May, 2013

Between:

The General Manager,

Orient Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

At./Po. Brajarajnagar, Dist. Jharsuguda.

Orissa — 768 216.

...1st Party-Management.

AND

Their workman represented through the

General Secretary, Brajarajnagar Coal Mines

Workers Union, PO. Orient Colliery, Via. Brajarajnagar,

Dist. Jharsuguda, Orissa.

...2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri J.K. Mishra,

—

For the 1st Party-

Authorized

Management.

Representative

Shri D. Mohanta,

—

For the 2nd Party-

Vice President.

Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of Orient Area,

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and their workman in exercise

of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 vide its letter No. L-22012/122/2003-IR

(CM-II) dated 23.02.2004.

2. The matter in dispute is given under the schedule

of the letter of reference which reads as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of Orient

Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., PO. Brajarajnagar,

Dist. Jharsuguda in dismissing Shri Jai Chan, S/o.

Sh. Dharmu, Piece Rated Loader from services w.e.f.

4.8.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

he is entitled to?"

3. The 2nd Party-Union persuading the cause of the

disputant workman has filed statement of claim with the

allegations that the disputant workman is the dependant

son of the ex-employee Shri Dharmu of Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited. He was given employment in the post

of Piece Rated Loader and was posted at Hingir Rampur

Colliery vide appointment letter dated 22.3.1995. He was

transferred to M.R.S., Orient Area in 1997 where he was

charge-sheeted by the 1st Party-Management on 11.4.1997

alleging that he had given false declaration claiming himself

to be the son of Shri Dharmu, ex-employee of MCL and

was asked to submit his explanation within three days. The

disputant workman submitted his reply on 18.4.1997 and

21.4.1997 denying the charges. Thereafter the 1st Party

Management ordered for initiation of disciplinary

proceedings and the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager,

MCL Orient Area, Brajarajnagar was appointed as enquiry

officer. The fact is that the disputant workman is the adopted

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5163

son of Shri Dharmu and a valid adoption was made in the

year 1984. Dharmu has a brother named Deo Ram, who

has a son named as Jai Chand Ram. Dharmu had retired

from service after being declared medically unfit. During

his service period Dharmu had availed of LTC wherein the

name of the disputant workman was included as his son

along with other family members. The disputant workman

had submitted all the relevant documents and affidavit at

the time of appointment which were duly verified and the

appointment was given. Shri Deo Ram, the brother of

Dharmu had been pursuing Dharmu for giving employment

to his son Jai Chand Ram in M.C.L., but Dharmu had not

agreed to it. Deo Ram and his son Jai Chand Ram being

annoyed lodged complaint with M.C.L and got the tailor

made police report to harass him. The disciplinary

proceedings were conducted in a most cavilier manner

without following the procedure of law and without giving

adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee. The

documents submitted by the disputant workman were not

taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. The original

complainant was not examined in the enquiry although

request was made for the same. He was not allowed to

reply on the vital documents. The documents required to

be produced were never produced on the repeated requests

of the disputant workman. The subsequent report submitted

by the In-charge of Mordha Police Station addressed to

the Superintendent of Police was not taken into

consideration by the enquiry officer which was in

contradiction of the earlier report. The enquiry officer

placed much reliance on the statements of the prosecution

witnesses which stand at complete variance. Some

important documents were not considered during enquiry.

The enquiry was completed before the receipt of re-

verification report from the Collector, Ghazipur. Copy of

the enquiry report was not supplied to the disputant

workman. Enquiry was completed without giving a fair

opportunity to the disputant workman to put his

submissions. Thus it is clear that the enquiry was not

conducted in a fair and proper manner. It has therefore

been prayed to declare the enquiry as illegal and findings

as improper holding the dismissal of the workman from

service as illegal and bad in law and to order reinstatement

with full back wages and other service benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management has filed written

statement and alleged that the disputant workman had

submitted fraudulent documents stating himself to be the

natural son of Sri Dharmu. He was charge-sheeted and

called upon to submit his explanation. Explanation being

not satisfactory, enquiry was ordered and an enquiry officer

was appointed. The disputant workman participated in the

said enquiry. He submitted his written submission on

27.3.1998 after completion of enquiry. The enquiry officer

after due scrutiny of the evidence and documents submitted

his report on 27.4.1998 and a copy was served on the

disputant workman on 26.5.1998. The disputant workman

thereafter submitted his explanation with the request to

revoke the charges against him. It is to be mentioned that

he had shown himself as natural son of ex-employee of

MCL Shri Dharmu, in his application dated 16.12.1995. In

the appointment letter it was clearly mentioned that if at

any time the documents/declaration made by the disputant

workman is found to be incorrect or fraudulent his services

will be terminated immediately and other action as deemed

fit will be initiated against him. The documents/declaration

submitted by the disputant workman were sent to the

District Collector, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh for verification

who reported police report that there is no, such person in

the name of the disputant workman in the village Bastpur

(Mustafabad) in Ghazipur District. The disputant workman

in his explanation dated 21.4.1997 has stated himself to be

the natural son of Shri Dharmu, but his further explanation

dated 18.4.1997 states that he is the original son of Dharmu.

The disputant workman has also filed a notarized deed of

adoption dated 2.2.1998 wherein it has been shown that

the disputant workman was adopted by said Dharmu in the

year 1984 and a deed was executed in non-judicial stamp

paper dated 21.9.1984. On the date of alleged adoption the

disputant workman was of 7 years of age while he declared

himself of 26 years of age as on 16.12.1995. Thus it is seen

that the disputant workman is not the son of Shri Dharmu,

ex-employee of MCL and he had adopted fraudulent method

for entering into service. The disputant workman with his

co-worker took part in the enquiry and was given ample

opportunity to cross examine the Management witnesses

and adduce evidence of his own witnesses and submit

documents which were taken into consideration by the

enquiry officer. The conduct of the disputant workman

always remained doubtful. The enquiry was conducted in

a fair and proper manner. The disputant workman had

approached the Hon'ble High Court in O.J.C. No. 9147/98

chllenging the legality of the disciplinary proceedings

which was dismissed as premature. All other contentions

raised by the disputant workman are false and denied.

5. On the pleadings of the parties my learned

predecessor has settled the following issues:-

ISSUES

Whether the domestic enquiry held against the

workman was fairly conducted and if so whether

the punishment of dismissing the workman from

service was just, proper and proportionate to

the charges?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

6. The 2nd Party-Union has examined Shri Dharmu

as W.W.-1 and Shri Jai Chand as W.W.-2 and filed several

documents in the shape of xerox copies, but none of those

5164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

documents has been proved and exhibited in evidence of

either of the two witnesses.

7. The 1st Party-Management has examined Shri Sarat

Chandra Panda and relied on documents marked as Ext.-1

to Ext.-10.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

8. The 2nd Party-Union has taken various grounds

to hold that the domestic enquiry held against the workman

was not fairly and properly conducted. First of all it has

been alleged that the disciplinary proceedings were

conducted in a most cavalier manner without following

the procedure of law and without giving adequate

opportunity to the delinquent employee to defend. But on

going through the whole proceedings of the enquiry, marked

as Ext.-4 it becomes quite clear that on each and every

date when enquiry proceedings were held the disputant

workman and his co-worker were present and took part in

the proceedings. Whenever the delinquent employee or his

co-workman was absent the enquiry proceedings were not

held and the same were adjourned to another date for which

due notice was given to them. The delinquent employee

and his co-workman were given proper opportunity to cross

examine the management witnesses and the cross

examination was done. The delinquent employee and his

co-workman were also given opportunity to adduce their

evidence in defence. Their documents were also taken on

record and considered by the enquiry officer. It is wrong

to say that the enquiry officer did not consider some

important documents during enquiry and necessary

documents were not produced even on the repeated request

of the disputant workman. The enquiry report which is part

of enquiry proceeding reveals that the enquiry officer has

taken into consideration all the oral and documentary

evidence of both sides and gave categorical findings on

the charges framed against the delinquent employee and

found the charges as proved beyond doubt.

9. The enquiry officer was himself examined as

Management Witness No. 1 by the 1st Party-Management.

He has stated in his evidence that on each date of hearing

the workman used to attend the enquiry along with his co-

workman. He was also given sufficient opportunity to cross

examine the witnesses of the Management. The delinquent

employee also got himself examined besides four witnesses.

The other allegation like that the Enquiry Officer placed

much reliance on the statements of the prosecution

witnesses which stand at complete variance and the

delinquent employee was not allowed to reply on the vital

documents stand disproved and baseless. Copy of enquiry

report was served on the disputant employee to which he

also filed reply. In these circumstances it cannot be taken

as true that the domestic enquiry was held in a most cavalier

manner without following the procedure of law and without

giving adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee

to defend. Therefore a reasonable conclusion can be derived

that the enquiry held against the workman was fairly

conducted and adequate opportunity was given to him to

defend.

10. The punishment awarded to the delinquent

employee o dismissal from service has been stated to be

excessive and disproportionate to the charges by the 2nd

Party-Union. But the contention of the 1st Party-

Management is that in the appointment letter itself issued

to the disputant workman, copy of which has been filed as

Ext.-1 by the 1st Management, it has been mentioned that

in-case the documents/declaration made by the disputant

workman is found at any time to be incorrect/fraud, his

services will be terminated immediately and other action

will be initiated against him as may be deemed fit. The

charge-sheet given to the delinquent employee/disputant

workman clearly states that he has given false declaration

claiming himself to be the son of Shri Dharmu whereas his

actual name is Jayachan son of Deo Ram of village

Mustafabad, Dist. Ghazipur, U.P., but not the son of

Dharmu, ex-cutter of Orient Mine No. 3. Under clause 26.9

of Standing Order it constitutes serious misconduct. Clause

26.9 says that giving false information regarding one's

name, age, father's name, qualification etc. in connection

with his employment is an act of misconduct. Therefore

punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the

disputant workman cannot be said to be excessive and

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The

2nd Party-Union has not been able to establish that the

declaration given by the disputant workman was not false

and fraudulent. His statement regarding his name, age,

parentage and address at various stages was not cohesive

and in tune with the declaration given at the time of his

appointment to the Management. No reliable and

uninflinching evidence could be produced by the disputant

workman regarding his valid adoption by Shri Dharmu,

ex-employee of the 1st Party-Management. Hence the

punishment awarded to the delinquent employee/disputant

workman was just and proper and cannot be held to be

excessive or disproportionate to the charges levelled against

him. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the 1st

Party-Management and against the 2nd Party-Union.

ISSUE NO. 2

11. In view of what has been stated and found in

Issue No. 1 the disputant workman is not entitled to any

relief whatsoever claimed. Here it may be mentioned that

the disputant workman was examined on behalf of the 2nd

Party-Union as W.W.-2, but his cross examination by the

1st Party-Management could not be completed due to his

death as is revealed from the petition moved on behalf of

the 2nd Party-Union on 21.10.2010.

Therefore the relief of reinstatement in service

claimed by the 2nd Party-Union in its statement of claim

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5165

has itself become infructuous and cannot be granted.

Therefore the whole claim is denied.

12. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1966.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 230 of 2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@406@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 230/2001 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

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

workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2013.

[No. L-20012/406/2001-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

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

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 230 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Jarangdih

Colliery of M/s. C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present:— SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma,

Advocate

For the workman

Shri K. Chakraborty,

Advocate

State:— Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 26.07.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/406/2001-IR-(C-I), dated

23/10/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of R.R. Shop

Jarangdih M/s. C.C. Ltd., P.O. Jarangdih, Distt. Bokaro

in terminating the service of Shri Chaman Kumarm

Cook is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is

the workman concerned entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 06.11.2001. After notice, both parties appeared. The

Sponsoring Union/workman files their written statement

on 12.08.2002. Thereafter rejoinder and documents of

workman and Management filed. Heard both sides and

persued enquiry report and, this Tribunal held the domestic

enquiry fair and proper.

3. The allegations against the workman is that, he

was a cook and he has hands in committing theft alongwith

others for which charge sheet placed, charges were proved

and the workman was dismissed. On carefull scrutiny of

record it is found, no report was submitted against the

workman to the police. No stolen properties recovered from

the possessions of the workman.

4. Therefore awareding major penalty like dismissal

is not warranted. This Tribunal opinies that the workman

be given appointment in the similar post, the type of post

he was holding where he has less scope to commit theft or

pilferage. The workman is also cautioned.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of R.R. Shop

Jarangdih M/s. C.C. Ltd., P.O. jarangdih, Dist Bokaro in

terminating the service of Shri Chaman Kumarm Cook is

not legal and justified, Hence he be reinstated by the

management but he be not given any backwages, His

service continuity will continue without back wages.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1967.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33

5166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dk 2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-

2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@141@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I)]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.33/2006)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2013.

[No. L-20012/141/2005-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

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

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 33 of 2006

Employers in relation to the management of HQ Koyla

Bhawan (GM. NEE) of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workmen.

Present : SHRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding

Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated 25.07.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/141/2005-IR (C-I), dated

12.01.2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

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

HQ Koyla Bhawan G.M. (Nee) in not granting/paying

leave wages for 62 days to the Concerned workman

Sri A.K. Roy, Ex-Console Operator, EDP Deptt. is

justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 13.02.2006. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the Sponsoring Union/workman files their written

statement on 28.03.2006. The management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 19.02.2009. And thereafter the

Sponsoring Union files their rejoinder & document and

examined one workman.

3. On behalf of the management, one manager has

been examined, Short point to be decided in the case is,

whether the workman will be entitled to earned leave of 62

days at the time of his retirement.

4. The workman submitted that though he applied

for earned leave the leave was not granted as there was

shortage of staff, and he was recommended for getting

earned leave. But the leave wage was refused. But the

manager examined on behalf of the management (MW-1)

submitted, that the leave application of the workman was

not rejected similarly placed, workman got earned leave.

The present workman was not allowed to go to leave.

Therefore he will be entitled to leave encashment for 62

days.

5. Considering the facts and circumstance of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of M/s.

BCCL HQ Koyls Bhawan G.M. (NEE) is not granting/paying

leave wages for 62 days to the Concerned workman Sri

A.K. Roy, Ex-Console Operator, EDP Deptt. is not justified.

Hence he will be entitled to leave encashment for 62 days.

6. The reference is answered in favour of the workman.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1968.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj gks'kaxkckn

{ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k

251@97 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@08@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@197@96&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 251/97) of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5167

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Hoshangabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

02/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/197/96-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/251/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Surendra Kumar Jain,

S/o Shri S.L. Jain,

Through Shri K.C. Jain,

Shanighara Ward,

Jain Mandir Road,

Hoshangabad (MP)

Workman

VERSUS

Branch Manager,

Hoshangabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Piparia, Distt. Hoshangabad

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of June, 2013

As per letter dated 5.9.97 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

ID Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/197/96-IR(B).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the termination of Shri Surendra Kumar

Jain, S/o Shri S.L. Jain, Hoshangabad working as

clerk in Regional Rural Bank from 3.7.86 to 28.6.89

is legal when he was likely to be age barred. To what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page

5/1 to 5/9. The case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as clerk at shobhapur branch by the management

of the Bank, Hoshangabad from 3.7.86. He performed his

duties satisfactorily. Suddenly on 15.9.87, his services were

discontinued by oral order. He was again appointed at

Piparia branch after his representations. His services

continued till 15.5.89. That he had worked for more than

240 days with the Bank during the period 1986 to 1989.

His services were discontinued without any order in writing.

He had approached ALC and the dispute has been

referred.He had completed 154 days service. He claims

that his services are illegally terminated contrary to the

service rules and guidelines issued by the Bank.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/5. IInd party submits that the workman was engaged on

daily wages @Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- per day. He had not

worked for more than 59 days at the time. That workman

was never appointed as clerk at Sohagpur Branch. He was

not appointed on regular basis. There was no question of

issuing showcause notice to the workman, no appointment

letter was issued to him. From 15.5.89, workman had

worked for 153 days at sohagpur branch. In 1986 he had

worked for 153 days at Sohagpur Branch, in 1987, he had

worked for 128 days at Sohagpur Area and in 1987, he

worked for 21 days at Pipariya branch. That the workman

had not completed 240 days working in any of the calender

year. He is not entitled to relief prayed by him. IInd party

denied all other contentions of Ist party workman.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the termination of

In Negative

Shri Surendra Kumar Jain,

S/o

Shri

S.L.

Jain,

Hoshangabad working as

clerk in Regional Rural Bank

from 3.7.86 to 28.6.89 is

illegal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman are

rejected.

REASONS

5. Though Ist party workman is challenging legality

of termination of his service contending that he was working

as clerk from 1986 to 1989 for different period. Workman

did not adduce any evidence. He is proceeded exparte on

10.5.2011. The management failed to adduce evidence.

Therefore the contentions of Ist party workman are not

supported by any thread of evidence. Therefore I record

my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:—

Termination of Ist party workman Shri Surendra

Kumar Jain, S/o Shri S.L. Jain, Hoshangabad

working as clerk in Regional Rural Bank from

3.7.86 to 28.6.89 is legal.

Relief prayed by workman are rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1969.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1 dk 2008½ dks

5168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@134@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e-ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2008)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of The General Manager,

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/08/2013.

[No. L-20012/134/2007- IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, 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. 01 OF 2008

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management

of General Manager, Katras Area of M/s.

BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman

Mr. B.B. Pandey, Ld.

Advocate

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th June, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then 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-20012/

134/07-1R (CM-I) dated 31.12.2007.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the East Katras Colliery of

M/s. BCCL in dismissing the services of Sh. Manik

Lal Ram, Miner Loader w.e.f. 16.6.2005 is justified

and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled ?"

2. Mr. B.B. PANDEY, the Ld. Advocate for the

Koyla lspat Mazdoor Panchyat, Chattabad No. 5,

Katrasgarh, Dhanbad with General Secretary Arjun Singh

of the Union and Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned Advocate

for the Opp./Management, Katras Area of M/s. BCCL, Sijua,

Dhanbad are present.

Filing a petition today, Mr. Pandey, the Learned

Advocate for the Union/Workman Manik Lal Ram submits

that since the workman is not interested to proceed with

the case, and intends to drop the matter, it may be closed,

as no longer Industrial dispute exists.

Perusal of the case record transpires its pendency

for filing documents on behalf of the both the parties, the

present reference relates to an issue about dismissal of the

said workman as the M/Loader w.e.f. 16.02.2005, but the

workman himself appears to be uninterested in contesting

the case. Under these circumstances, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of the "No Industrial Dispute" is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1970.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ

bUnkSj ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@334@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2001)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of Indore and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

02/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/334/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5169

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/20/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri P.N. Sharma, Chairman,

All India State Bank of Indore employees

Coordination Committee, 138,

Shakti Nagar,

Jabalpur

Workman

VERSUS

General Manager (Operations),

State Bank of Indore,

Head office, 5, Yeshwant

Niwas Road,

Indore

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of June, 2013

1. As per letter dated 29-12-2000 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-12012/334/2000/1R(B-I). The dispute under

reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Pradeep Singh Suryavanshi

w.e.f. 1-2-1998 is justified? If not, what relief he is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Ist party workman submitted his statement

of claim . The case of the Ist party workman is that he

was employed as peon-cum-guard at Regional office,

Jabalpur of the Bank on 15-6-95. He continued to work

without break till 31-1-98. He was appointed against

permanent vacancy. He was wrongly terminated from

1-2-98 without following procedure laid down under

Bipartite Settlement and provisions of I.D. Act. Prior

notice was not given, salary in lieu of notice was not paid.

He was not paid retrenchment as per Section 25-F of

I.D .Act. That he had put continuous service more than

240 days as defined in Section 25-B of I.D. Act. That he

was entitled to get full scale wages but he was paid

Rs. 55/- per day in violation of Bipartite Settlement. That

his termination is illegal. He prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. Management of IInd party filed Written Statement

at Page 16 to 23. IInd party denied claim of the workman.

Preliminary objection is raised that workman had never

worked as peon-cum-guard in the bank therefore reference

is not tenable. There is no question of terminating the

services of workman as he was not employed by following

proper process. Workman was not appointed neither

terminated by the Bank. The reference is not proper.

4. It is submitted that Bank is a statutory corporation

carrying banking business through different offices. The

Bank has its service regulations for recruitment of Class-

III/IV employees. The appointment of messengers, peon

and guards are made by Head Office following recruitment

procedure giving wide publications in newspapers , names

sponsored by Employment Exchange of candidate's

qualifications. That applicant's name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He was not called for any

interview or any recruitment process. The Bank had not

engage workman for services claimed by the workman. It is

further submitted that for utilizing services for 1-2 hours

for fetching water form tap from ground floor to Ist floor,

the workman was paid amount agreed by him. His dis-

engagement cannot be termed as retrenchment. His

disengagement is covered under Section 2(oo)(aa) of I.D.

Act.

5. lInd party management denied that workman had

completed 240 days continuous service preceding his

termination. No evidence was produced in that regard. That

services of workman were utilized for 1- 2 hours for fetching

water from tap at ground floor. It is denied that the services

are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, The

claim of Ist party is liable to be rejected.

6. The workman submitted rejoinder at page 16/1 to

16/3 reiterating his earlier contentions that he had worked

for 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his

termination. He is workman under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act.

His services are illegally terminated in violation of Section

25-F, G of I.D. Act.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the

management of State, Bank of

In Negative

lndore,

Jabalpur (MP) in

terminating the services of

Shri Pradeep Singh Suryavanshi

w.e.f. 1-2-1998 is legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

8. Ist party workman is challenging his termination.

Affidavit of his evidence is filed. He has stated in his

5170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

affidavit that he has passed 8th standard in 1990, his name

was enrolled in Employment Exchange office. He was

engaged as peon/watchman from 15-6-95 and continued

to work till 31-1-98. He had completed 240 days continuous

service during each of the calendar year. His services were

terminated without notice. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. He was not paid salary in lieu of notice. He

is unemployed. That juniors Laxmi Narayan, Rajesh Sen,

Arvind, Maniram Yadav, Umesh and Mukesh Agrawal are

working at Indore, Jabalpur etc. In his cross-examination,

the workman says that the appointments of peon/farrash is

made as per rules of the Bank. He further says that in 1995,

he was of 18-19 years. That he had submitted application

for appointment. He was not called for written test or

interview. Appointment letter was not given to him. That

as per Exhibit W-3, he was paid wages Rs. 55/- per day.

The permanent staff was paid Rs.10 to 15 thousand. He

denies suggestion that he had not worked for 240 days

preceding his determination. In his re-examination,

workman has stated that one Umakant Thakur has

submitted application Exhibit W-4. That he had submitted

application to management for increasing his wages

Exhibit W-5.

9. Management filed evidence of affidavit of witness

Shri Pawan Vijayvargiya. He has stated in•his affidavit that

the workman had not continuously worked from 15-6-95

to 31-1-98. He was not appointed on any post. He is not

employee of the Bank That he was engaged for cleaning

work, he was working for 1-2 hours, wages were paid to

him as per agreement. That workman was not appointed

following selection procedure. In his cross-examination,

management witness says that he does not identify the

workman that wages were paid in cash under vouchers and

the vouchers may be available with the Bank. The record

about regular selection may be in the Bank. Any way said

record is not produced. Despite the witness has undertaken

to produce the record. At the time of argument, learned

counsel for Ist party workman Mr. Praveen Yadav pointed

out my attention that application for production of

document was filed requesting management to produce

Petty Cash Register, Miscellaneous Register for the period

from 16-6-95 to 31-1-98. The application was opposed.

IInd party has not produced those document. Though

witness of the management says that document may be

available in the Bank but documents are not produced. It

is clear that the Bank is withholding the material documents,

not producing before Court and therefore evidence of

workman that he was continuously working for more than

240 days deserves to be accepted. The record about

payment of wages and vouchers of daily wage employees

are in the Bank, those documents are not produced. Those

documents would support the claim of the workman. From

above discussion, it is clear that workman had completed

240 days continuous working preceding his termination.

His services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act. Therefore the termination of service of Ist party

workman is illegal. I therefore record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

10. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

services of workman are terminated in violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act, the question arises to what relief the

workman is entitled, whether he is entitled to reinstatement

with backwages. As per the pleadings and evidence of

1st Party workman, he was working with the IInd party

bank from 15-6-95 to 31-1-98 for about 2½ years. There is

no evidence that he was appointed following recruitment

rules. No appointment order was issued to him therefore

the 1st party workman would not be entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. It is not a rule or thump

that in all the cases where termination is in violation of

Section 25-F, reinstatement with back wages should be

ordered. Alternative relief of suitable compensation shall

be granted as argued by counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti.

Considering the spam of service rendered by workman, in

my considered view retrenchment compensation for 2½

years i.e. 3 years i.e. for 45 days @ Rs. 51/- per day = Rs.

2475/-, notice pay @ Rs. 55/- for 30 days = Rs. 1650/- and

compensation Rs. One Lakh needs to be paid to the

workman. Accordingly I hold and record my finding on

Point No. 2.

In the result, award is passed as under:—

(i)

The action of the management of State Bank of

Indore, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Pradeep Singh Suryavanshi

w.e.f. 1-2-1998 is illegal.

(ii)

IInd party is directed to pay retrenchment

compensation-Rs. 2475/-, notice pay-Rs.1650/-

and Rs. 1 Lakh compensation to the Ist party

workman immediately.

If the amount as per above order is not paid within 30

days, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1971.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ jktLFkku

fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 1@09 dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@82@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5171

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1/09) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 02/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/82/2007-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/1/09

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

General Secretary,

Pratadith Karmachari Kalyan Manch,

9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain

...Workman/Union

VERSUS

The Managing Director,

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.,

Head Office, G-3,

Sardar Patel Marg,

Jaipur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of March 2013

1. Present reference is received as per letter dated

3-2-2009 from Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi. It appears that by earlier letter dated 3-8-07, the

reference was forwarded to this tribunal but the same was

not received. Consequently the reference was sent again.

The dispute is referred as per Notification No.L-12012/

82/2007- IR(B-I) . The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. in

terminating the services of Shri Bhupendra Pawar

w.e.f. 15-1-2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

2. After receipt of reference, notices were issued to

the parties. The Ist party/workman submitted his statement

of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/5. The case of 1st party/workman

as per the statement of claim is that he was engaged on

daily wages of Rs.25/- per day in March-96 as peon. Since

then he was continuously working, his wages were

increased from Rs.30/- to Rs.40/-, 50/- & 60/- per day. He

was not paid wages for holidays like 26th January and 15th

August. The record about payment of wages was with

IInd party/Bank. He had completed 240 days continuous

service. The Branch Manager discontinued his services

from 15-1-01 without notice, without paying retrenchment

compensation. It is alleged that his services are terminated

in violation of Section 33 of ID.Act. The payment of wages

vouchers bears signatures of the Branch Managers working

from time to time. He submitted proceeding for conciliation

and on its failure, the dispute has been referred for

adjudication.

3. 1st party/workman submits that he had worked

continuously for 240 days. As such he is covered under

Section 25(b) of I.D.Act. He had completed 9 years service.

His services are terminated in contravention of Section 25-

F, G & N of I.D.Act. The principles of "last come first go"

is not followed. On such contentions, 1st party/workman

prays for regularisation of his service from 16-1-05,

reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/7. It is submitted that representative Shri Ram Nagwanshi

cannot file the reference. He was ex-employee of State Bank

of Indore, he was dismissed from service. Ratio in various

cases on above point is relied by IInd party. It is denied

that 1st party/workman was continuously working for more

than 240 days , it is denied that his services are terminated

in violation of Section 25F, H of I.D.Act. It is submitted

that the post of Peon, Messenger, Security Guard in the

Bank are filed after advertisement. The Branch Manager

has no power to make their payments. 1st party/workman

is trying to get regular post by back door. The procedure

for recruitment is not followed for appointment of the 1st

party/workman. There is no employee, employer

relationship between the 1st and IInd party. The daily wage

or adhoc employee are not entitled for regularization. In

para-14 to 27 of the Written Statement, IInd party has

referred the ratio held on different cases on the point that

in proceeding filed by 1st party before Controlling

Authority under P.G. Act, Jabalpur, it was held that Ist party/

workman did not work continuously for 240 days therefore

he is not entitled to relief prayed by him. On such ground,

IInd prays for rejection of the claim of 1st party/workman.

5. 1st party/workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to

7/3 denying contention of the IInd party. It is submitted

that the copy of citations referred in the Written statement

are not produced. That 1st party/workman has worked for

8 hours as messenger. His wages were drawn in the Bank

of other employees and were paid to him. 1st party/

workman restated that his claim be allowed.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Asstt. Gen.

Manager, Bank of Rajasthan

5172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ltd. in terminating the services

of Shri Bhupendra Pawar w.e.f.

15.1.2005 is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Demands of 1st party/

workman is entitled to?"

workman are

rejected.

REASONS

7. Though locus of representative of 1st party Mr.

Nagwanshi is challenged by the IInd party, any argument

were not advanced in that regard. This point was waved at

the time of final argument. In support of his claim, 1st party

workman filed affidavit of his evidence claiming that he

was working on daily wages with the IInd party Bank on

March 96. He was doing cleaning work in the Bank from

8.30 AM. Thereafter he was doing different works in Bank

as per direction of the Bank Manager like taking vouchers,

token book, ledger from one table to other, providing

drinking water to staff and customers. He was doing such

work from 10 AM to 6 PM. He had completed 240 days

work. His wages were increased from Rs.20 to 30, 40, 50 &

60 per day. He also refers to information called by Regional

office, Indore about his working. The said letter is produced

at Exhibit W/1. The only information was called from the

Branch office, Indore about the 1st party/workman whether

he was working on daily wages. The said document is

silent about the working days and wages paid to 1st party.

1st party has produced documents along with his affidavit.

The zerox copies of all documents contains payments made

to different persons for different purposes. There is

absolutely no reference about payment of wages to the 1st

party/workman. There is absolutely no evidence that 1st

party/workman was doing work continuously for more than

240 days prior to his alleged termination. The evidence on

affidavit of 1st party remained unchallenged as he was not

cross-examined but it is not sufficient to establish

continuous working of 1st party in the Bank and other

details pleaded by him.

8. The evidence of management's witness Shri

Ramdev Sunar on affidavit is filed. The said witness was

cross-examined by 1st party. In his cross-examination, the

witness says that cleaning work was done in Bank every

day. Different employees were engaged for it. On the

information received from regular employee, he had stated

that workman was working for 40, 50 months during a day.

That wages of 1st party were paid withdrawing amount in

the name of regular employees. He claims ignorance that

there was any order for payment of wages in name of regular

employee. The evidence of management's witness also

does not substantiate claim of 1st party that he had worked

continuously for more than 240 days prior to his

retrenchment compensation.

9. The management has alleged that in proceeding

filed before Controlling Authority under P.G.Act, Jabalpur

was held that 1st party/workman has not worked for 240

days preceding the date of his termination. The copy of

the said judgment/order is not produced on record. On

scrutiny of whole evidence, I find that 1st party/workman

has not established that he worked for 240 days

continuously preceding his date of termination, therefore

he is not entitled to protection under Section 25-H of

I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 as Negative.

10. In the result, I pass following award—

The demand of 1st party/workman for his

reinstatement with back wages is rejected as

he has failed to prove that he worked 240 days

continuously prior to his termination.

1st party/workman is not entitled to any relief

as claimed by him.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1972.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

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

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

tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 159@99 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@584@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 159/99) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/08/

2013

[No. L-12012/584/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/159/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Shivshankarlal Yadav,

S/o Shri Rajaram Yadav,

Ex-worker of SBI,

Chandini chowk, Babupara,

Raigarh (MP)

...Workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5173

VERSUS

Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-V, Shankarnagar,

Raipur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of June 2013

1. As per letter dated 19-4-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No.L-12012/584/98/1R(B-I). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the State Bank of India,

Raigarh Branch ( under the Regional manager,

Region-V, Raipur MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Shivshankarlal Yadav, Ex-Daily rated/Casual

worker with effect from 6-3-1997 is justified? If not

to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/4. The case of 1st party workman is that he had

worked as waterman on daily wages from February 1991

to August 1994 continuously. He had completed 240 days

in a calendar year. He belongs to OBC. His services were

illegally discontinued and persons worked for lesser days

were regularized. That he had completed 240 days

continuous service before his discontinuance amounts to

retrenchment under Section 25- F of I.D.Act. That Shri

Mehattar Chouhan, Benudhar Gupta and Paras Namdeo

and many other daily wagers have been regularised in

service on the pretext of being successful in the interview.

That the interview is a farce, only name address etc. is

being asked in the interview for regularizing a workman

on the post of waterman, messenger and Farrash. That the

management of IInd party adopted pick and choose method.

On such contentions workman is praying for his

reinstatement.

3. IInd party management of the Bank filed Written

Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/7. It is submitted by IInd party

that the workman was employed purely as part time daily

rated employee as waterman for sprinkling water on

Khastatti. From January 91 to August 91 he worked for

168 days, from August 91 to November 91 for 76 days and

from May 93 to December 93 for 183 days. That he was

engaged on contract basis as per exigency of work. As soon

as work was over employee was not required therefore he

was not engaged after December 1993. That reference is

not tenable. That the workman had not completed 240 days

in any of the calendar year. His discontinuation is covered

under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. The workman was

considered for permanent appointment as per Bipartite

agreement dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 28-10-88, 9-1-91,

9-7-92. That he was called for interview on 6-3-97. The

Committee found him unsuitable for permanent

appointment as per advise letters dated 31-1-98, 2-5-98, the

selected candidate were appointed against available

vacancies. That the employee had not completed 240 days

working during any of the preceding year. He is not entitled

to reinstatement as prayed by him.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the State

In Affirmative

Bank of India, Raigarh

Branch ( under the Regional

manager, Region-V, Raipur

MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Shivshankarlal Yadav,

Ex-Daily rated/Casual worker

with effect from 6-3-1997 is

legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

5. In the dispute under reference, 1st party workman

has challenged his termination from service w.e.f. 6-3-97 .

He claimed to have continuously worked in the Bank from

Feb 1992 to August 1994 and completed 240 days

continuous service. However the workman has failed to

adduce evidence. The case is proceeded exparte against

workman on 20-6-2012. Management filed affidavit of

evidence of witness Laxman Das Agrawal. The said witness

has stated in his affidavit that the workman was engaged

as part time daily wager for sprinkling water on Khastatti

during the period January 91 to August 1991- he had

worked for 168 days, august 1991 to November 91- 76

days and May 93 to December 93-0 183 days. That

workman did not worked after December 1993. It is

incorrect but the workman worked till March 1997. The

evidence of witness remained unchallenged. The workman

has not adduced any evidence neither he has cross-

examined witness of the management. Therefore

termination of workman from 6-3-97 is not proper, the

action cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record

my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(i)

The action of the State Bank of India, Raigarh

Branch ( under the Regional manager, Region-

V, Raipur MP) in terminating the services of Shri

shivshankarlal Yadav w.e.f. 6-3-97 is not proved

illegal.

(ii) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

5174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1973.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 169@2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@146@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 169/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/146/2003-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/169/2003

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain,

S/o Shri Gyanchand Jain,

R/o Nai Aabadi, Gali No. 2,

Bhind (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Regional Office,

Jayendraganj,

Gwalior

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of June 2013

1. As per letter dated 22-27/10/2003 by the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal

under Section 10 of I. D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12012/146/2003-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank of India, Gwalior in

terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain

S/o Shri Gyanchand Jain w.e.f. 1-5-97 is justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/3. The case of 1st party is that he was appointed by

IInd party No. 3, SBI, Itawa Road, Bhind as messenger

from 5-8-85 for 84 days. Thereafter his appointment was

extended from time to time. He continuously worked till

1989. Again he was appointed in May 1992 and

continuously worked till 30-4-97. His services were suddenly

terminated from 1-5-97. His services were terminated

without assigning any reason, no termination order was

given in writing. That he was paid salary in the name of

Subhash Jain, Pradeep Jain and Rajendra Shukla. When he

opposed to take salary and in name of other persons, he

was threatened and compelled to receive salary in name of

other persons. He was interviewed on 17-8-92 for regular

appointment but its result was not disclosed to him. He

claims to have continuously worked for more than 240 days.

That he was not given notice, he was not paid salary in lieu

of notice, termination of his services is in violation of

Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act. That he is not in gainful

employment, that he prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. The management filed Written Statement at Page

7/1 to 7/9. The IInd party submits that the workman was

engaged on daily wages as messenger only for 84 days in

1985, rest of the contention of the workman are denied.

That the workman was not in employment of the Bank. His

services were on contract basis. He had not worked for 240

days in any year. That workman had worked intermittently

for 104 days during 1988-89 has Hammal. That his

engagement could not be treated as in continuous service.

That the management has elaborate selection procedure

as per the Agreement entered into with the Employees

Association. These agreements were made on 17-11-87,

16-7-88, 28-10-88 and 9-1-91. That workman was called for

interview on 23-12-90, he was found not eligible. The

workman had worked only for 84 days till cut off date of 14-

8-1991. As per settlement, the panel was required to be

kept alive till March 1997 so that opportunity for permanent

appointment can be given to empanelled candidates against

the vacancies available as on 31-12-94.

4. IInd party management denies that the workman

continuously worked from May 1992 till 30-4-97. It is

reiterated that the workman has not completed 240 days

continuous service. After interview on 26-12-90, he was

not found eligible for regular appointment. That

discontinuation of his service does not amount to

retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of I.D. Act. He is not

entitled to protection of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. That the

workman was engaged on daily wages. His services came

to an end at the end of the day. On such contentions IInd

party prays for rejection of the claim of the 1st party.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5175

5. 1st party filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2. He has

reiterated his earlier contentions, he submits that no

contract was executed by him with IInd party. It is false

that he was not engaged after 1992.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

"(i) Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank

of India, Gwalior in

terminating the services of

Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain

S/o Shri Gyanchand Jain

w.e.f. 1-5-97 is legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

As per final order

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. From pleadings between parties, there is no dispute

that the workman had worked for 84 days in 1985. IInd

party further admits that 1st party workman had worked for

104 days in 1988-89. Other contentions of 1st party are

totally denied by the IInd party. 1st party claimed that he

had completed 240 days continuous service during all the

calendar years. The above contentions of 1st party is denied

by the management of IInd party. The parties are in serious

dispute about whether 1st party was in continuous service

for 240 days preceding his termination. In his affidavit of

evidence, 1st party has stated on oath during May 1992 to

30-4-97, he worked for more than 240 days. He was not

issued notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation,

he was not paid salary in lieu of notice. In his cross-

examination, he says that he was working from 5-8-85 to

30-4-97 continuously. Appointment letter was given to him.

He was working on daily wages. He has produced

documents about it, he has received document for interview

in 1992. He has produced said document on record. He was

paid wages in name of other persons. His evidence that he

had worked for more than 240 days, he was not given notice,

salary in lieu of notice was not paid to him, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him is not challenged in his

cross-examination. Workman has submitted application for

production of documents i.e. copy of outward register in

SBI

Bhind

for

the

period

25-1-97 to 31-3-97 and all copies of letters sent by Chief

Manager Bhind to Asstt. Manager, SBI, Gwalior. The

application was opposed as per order dated 6-1-2011. The

workman was allowed permission to allow secondly

evidence to prove his case and adverse interference will be

drawn for not filing specific reply regarding documents.

The evidence on material point discussed above stated by

workman in his affidavit is not challenged in his cross-

examination, the evidence in material point remained

unchallenged and as such amounts to admitted fact.

8. IInd party submitted affidavit of witness

Shri Lokendra Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager. His evidence

is on the point that in 1985, workman had worked only for

84 days, he was not in continuous service of the Bank. In

1988-89, he worked for 104 days intermittently. He was

engaged on contract basis during 1992. That there is

nothing in Branch to show that workman worked upto 1-5-

97. That he had never worked for 240 days during any of

the calendar year. In his cross-examination, management's

witness says when workman Rakesh Kumar Jain was

working at Bhind, he was not working in said branch, he

has no personal knowledge about his working. That he

submitted affidavit on the basis of available record. He did

not remember how many days workman worked in the Bank

during 1990 to 1994. The witness of the management has

no personal knowledge about working of workman. On the

other hand, evidence of workman that he had completed

240 days working during each calendar year was not

challenged in his cross-examination. The application for

production of documents was filed. Those documents was

not produced. If the evidence of parties is tested on

probabilities, unchallenged evidence of 1st party cannot

be rejected whereas the evidence of the witness of IInd

party has no personal knowledge of the workman of the

workman and therefore his evidence cannot be preferred

to the evidence adduced by workman. For above reasons,

I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of workman that he

had worked for more than 240 days during each of the

calendar year during 1992 to 1997.

9. Learned counsel for 1st party Mr. S. Mishra relies

on ratio held in

Case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department

versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in 2010-1-

Supreme Court Cases 47. Their Lordship dealing with scope

of Section 2(oo)(bb), 25-A, 25-F, 25-B and 25-G of I.D. Act

held no evidence produced of decision of Government with

regard to declaring fisheries a seasonal industry, hence the

same cannot be classified as such.

In present case, such question is not involved, the

ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

Their Lordship further held documentary evidence

produced by appellant employer contradictory of its claim

that respondent had not worked requisite 240 days.

The facts in present case are not comparable. The

ratio cannot be applied to the present case. However in the

present case, evidence of workman that he had completed

240 days continuous service during each of calendar year,

he was not served with notice, salary in lieu of notice was

not paid, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him

remained unchallenged in his cross-examination.

10. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti relies

on ratio held in

"Case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad versus

Shri Niwas reported in 2004- 8-Supreme Court Cases

5176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

195. Their Lordship dealing with non-production of

documents and adverse inference may be drawn held

presumption as to adverse inference is always

optional and one of the factors which is required to

be taken into consideration is the background of facts

involved in the lis- notwithstanding the intentional

non-production of evidence, other circumstances may

exist upon which such intentional non-production

may be found to be justifiable on some reasonable

grounds — Moreover a party in order to get the

benefit of Section 114 III.(g), Evidence Act must place

some evidence in support of his case- Here the

respondent had failed to lead any evidence

whatsoever in support of his contention that he had

complied with the requirements of Section 25-B.

Hence the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction in

exercising its discretion not to draw any adverse

inference against the appellant employer. "

In present case it is pointed out by IInd party

Mr. Shroti. Application No.10 was submitted for

documents of outward register — January to March

1997 and all letters sent by Chief Manager to

Assistant General Manager during said period. The

document sought to be produced do not relate to

the attendance register, payment of wages and

therefore adverse inference cannot be drawn against

the management. No doubt considering application

No.10, the nature of documents sought to be

produced no adverse inference about working days

of the workman. However as discussed above in

evidence, he has worked for more than 240 days

during each of the calendar year remained

unchallenged and there is no reason to reject the said

evidence. Therefore I hold that 1st party workman

had completed 240 days continuous service prior to

his termination. His services were terminated in

violation of Section 25-H of I.D. Act. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation, no notice was issued.

Therefore the action of the management

is illegal. Accordingly I record my finding on Point

No. l.

11. Point No. 2- In view of my finding on Point No.1,

question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled

to? As per evidence on record, since 1997, workman is out

of employment for about 17 years, he was working on daily

wages, he was not appointed against regular post.

Therefore reinstatement of workman would not be

appropriate rather awarding reasonable compensation

would be appropriate in the matter. Considering that the

workman was working on daily wages with IInd party from

1985 to 1997, compensation Rs.1,50,000 would be justified.

The workman would also be entitled to retrenchment

compensation for 12 years completed service, 6 months

wages and one months notice pay. Accordingly I hold

Issue No. 2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(i)

The action of the management of Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India, Gwalior in

terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar

Jain S/o Shri Gyanchand Jain w.e.f. 1-5-97 is

illegal.

(ii) Ilnd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs.1,50,000, retrenchment

compensation for 12 years completed service

and one month's notice pay at the rate of last

wages paid to him.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 %

interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1974.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 185 vkWQ 1998½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@216@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&I]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 185/

1998) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

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

workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/08/

2013.

[No. L-20012/216/1997-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, 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.185 OF 1998.

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Mohuda, Dhanbad,Vs. General Manager,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5177

Mohuda Area No. II of M/s. BCCL,

Mhuda, Dhanbad.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman

Mr. B. B. Pandey. Ld.

Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th July, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of the powers conferred on then 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-20012/216/97-IR(C-1) dt. 27.8.1998

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mohuda

Afrea No. II of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Nago

Dusadh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2 The case of the Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Chhatabad, Dhanbad for workman Nago Dusadh is that he

is a M/Loader of Murlidih 20/22 Pit Colliery of M/s. BCCL

under Mahuda Area No.11, was a permanent employee of

the colliery. The workman was chargesheeted with

suspension as per the letter no. 20/21 Pits /91/2442 dt.

29/30.6.1991 for fraudulent employment in BCCL in place

of Jogeshwar Dusadh Wagon Loader at Murlidih Colliery

who was medically declared unfit, as he was not son of

Jopgeshwar Dusad.,Mohuda P.S.Case No. 221/91 G.R. Case

No.760/91 on the F.I.R. was lodged against him under

sections 419, 420 etc. I.P.C. on the same allegation, but the

workman was acquitted by Shri S.K. Sinha, the Judicial

Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad on 28.6.1995.The workman

has also submitted his reply to the chargesheet, denying

all the allegations. After being dissatisfied with his reply

the Management as per its letter no. 20/21 Pits/PD/00/91/

4283 dt. 22.10.91 decided to hold the enquiry. Accordingly,

Sri N.K.Singh, Dy. C.M.E., Mahuda Area was appointed as

the Enquiry Officer for it.

3. On notice of the enquiry, the workman filed the

T.S. No. 55/92 in the court of the Munsif II, Dhanbad for

permanent injuction, and thereinafter hearing the parties, it

was directed that no punitive action would be taken against

the workman till the conclusion of the said criminal trial.

But the departmental enquiry was concluded during the

pendency of the criminal trial, without giving him sufficient

opportunity for his defence contrary to the rule of the

natural justice. At the conclusion of the criminal Trial, the

workman submitted an application along with copies of

the judgment of his acquittal, and of the order dt. 4.9.95

passed in the Title Suit No. 55/92 to the management for

due consideration, but after the conclusion of the

departmental enquiry based on the same charges, he was

dismissed w.e.f. 2.5.96 from his service as per the letter dt.

30.4.96/2.5.96.The workman remained suspended w.e.f.

30.6.91 to 1.5.96 without suspensions allowance, so he made

representations to the management on 29.5.92, 17.7.92 and

2.11.1993 and even to the Enquiry Officer on 7.7.92 about

it, but all ineffective. It is alleged neither supply of any

document to him, nor application of mind by the Colliery

Agent nor placement of his explanation dt. 20.3.96 before

the Punishment Authority. The dismissal of the workman

against the Certified Standing Order was illegal and

unjustified. On failure in conciliation in the I.D. raised by

the union for the workman before the ALC (C), Dhanbad, it

resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

4. The Union in its rejoinder specifically denying the

allegation has stated that Sri Jageshwar Dusadh Ex-Wagon

Loader, had never proposed nor stated to give employment

to his daughter Maya Kumari.

5. Whereas in a challenge to the maintainability of

the reference, the contra pleaded case of the

OP/Management with categorical denials is that

Nago Dusadh got himself appointed as a M/Loader by

submitting himself as son of Late Jogeshwar Dusadh.

Subsequently, said Jogeshwar Dusadh, Ex-Wagon Loader,

Murlidih Colliery had submitted a written complaint that

on termination of his service for his medically unfitness, he

had proposed to give employment to his daughter Maya

Kumari, for which he had entrusted with Sri Nago Dusadh

to get the employment of his daughter, but aforesaid Nago

Dusadh entered into the Service of M/s. BCCL as his son

in place of his daughter Maya Kumari. At the receipt of the

complaint, the Management lodged the F.I.R. with Mohuda

Police Station against and issued charge sheet with

suspension order to Sri Nago Dusad as per letter nos. 2596

and 2442 dt. 6th July and 30th June,1991 respectively. The

Personnel Officer of Bhurugnia Project conducted the

domestic enquiry into the chargesheet against the workman

as per principle of natural justice. On the basis of the

Enquiry Report, the workman was dismissed from service

as per letter no. 1241 dt. 2.5.1996.

In its rejoinder, categorically denying the allegations

of the workman, the O.P./Management has stated the

workman was not paid any subsistence allowance, as it

was a case of impersonation, and he was found to be not

genuine. The Enquiry Officer had no power to grant a

subsistence allowance. Moreover, the workman had fully

participated in the enquiry which was held fairly. The

dismissal of the workman from services was quit right

punishment for his impersonation, otherwise it would have

been encouraged other persons to get such fraudulent

employment into the M/s. BCCL. In case, the enquiry is

declared unfair and proper, the management urged for

5178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

leading the evidences to prove the charges against the

workman.

FINDING WITH REASONING.

6. In the instant case, consequent upon the

declaration of the domestic enquiry as unfair, improper and

against the tenets of natural justice as per the Order No. 27

dt. 21.5.2004 of the Tribunal, MWI J.U. Khan, the Sr. Project

Officer of Bhurungia Colliery for the O.P./Management,

and two witnesses, namely, WW1 Nago Dusadh, the

workman himself, and WW2 Jageshwar Dusadh, the Ex-

Wagon Loader of Murlidih Colliery for the Union all on

merits were respectively examined.

7. On the perusal and consideration of the afresh

materials, I find that MMI J.U. Khan as the Sr.Project Officer

of Bhurungia Project, Mohuda Area, has positively affirmed

that the workman concerned had got his employment on

compassionate ground declaring Ex Wagon Loader

Jogeshwar Dusadh as his father who was medically

declared unfit in the year 1989; the workman worked as

Miner Loader at 20/21 Pits at Mahuda Area; but aforesaid

Ex-wagon Loader Jogeshwar as per his petition (Ext.M.1)

to the G.M. of Mahuda Area had complained of the

employment of the workman concerned by false

personification, as he was not his son, thereafter, on the

chargesheet (Ext.M.3), being dissatisfied with his reply,

the Disciplinary Authority as per his appointment letter

(Ext.M.4) as the Enquiry Officer directed him to hold the

domestic enquiry. It is also evident that after holding

enquiry as per the enquiry proceeding also under the

signature of the workman and his co-workers (Ext. M.5

series) and in course of which recording the statements of

the workman concerned, Jogeshwar Dusadh and his wife

Chinta Dusadh under their LTI and RTI (Ext.M.6 & 8

respectively) and the witnesses of the Management Viz.

M.C. Khawas, Asgar Ali and Daula Mia. As per the Voter

List of Baghmara Vidhan Sabha of the Constituency

No. 281 (Ext.M.9), the name of the workman Nago Paswan

under its Sl. No. 681 bears as son of Khublal Paswan

(Ext.M.9/1), but the workman did not produce any paper to

show as the son of Jogeshwar Dusadh.At the enquiry, he

(MWI) submitted his enquiry report (Ext.M.10), and as per

the Note sheet (Ext.M.11 of the Project Officer),the G.M.

approved the dismissal of the workman from service, and

accordingly he was dismissed from services as per the

dismissal letter (Ext.M.12). The acknowledged fact of the

Management witness (MWI) is that subsistence allowance

was along unpaid to the workman upto his dismissal by the

management during the enquiry on the ground of his

involvement in a frauds case, though the workman had got

acquittal in the local police cease related to allegation of

fraud as per its F.I.R.

8. Statement of WWI Nago Dusadh, the workman

himself, reveals his admission about his appointments as

M/Loader on compassionate ground in the year 1990 at 20/

21 Pits of Murlidih Colliery after declaring his father

Jogeshwar Dusadh medically unfit, the issuance of charge

sheet to him with his suspension allowance by the

management, the payment of suspension to him for first six

months, and his dismissal by the management in the year

1996. But the facts of his living at Kustore and Kustore

Colliery lying Dhanbad Assembly are his unpleaded,yet

he proved his Voter's I.D. Card issued in the year 2003 as

Ext.W.I which is inadmissible. Moreover the Voter I. Card

of the workman Nago Dusadh son of Jageshwar Dusadh

r/o Kustore, District : Dhanbad is dt.01.01.2003 which is

more than 12 years later. As per his representations in the

year 1992-93 (Ext.W.2 series), he sought for his Suspension

Allowance, in the letter of the Management to the

A.L.C.(C),Dhanbad (Ext.W.3) relates to the fraudulent

employment of the workman through impersonification as

son of Late Jogeshwar Dusadh. The Certified copies of the

formal F.I.R. and the judgment of Sri K.S.C. Sinha,the Judicial

Magistrate (1st Class), Dhanbad dt. 28.6.95 in the G.R. Case

No. 760/91 (Ext.W.4 and 4/1 respectively) proved by the

workman who was acquitted of the charges u/sec.419 etc.

I.P.C. He (WWI) has denied that he is not the son of

Jogeshwar Dusadh.

9. Accepting the facts of his stoppage from work by

the management since 1989 on the ground of his medical

unfitness ,and Maya Kumari as his daughter,WW2

Jogeshwar Dusadh has flatly denied to have ever filed any

complaint to the management about the workman Nago

Dusadh to have fraudulently got his employment in place

of his daughter Maya Kumari. He claimed to have stated

before the Chas Court about the workman as his son for

providing him employment. It is also observed that

G.R.Case No.760/91 based on such statement of Jogeshwar

Dusadh and his daughter Maya Devi being hostile resulted

in the acquittal of the workman from the charges of his

fraudulent employment etc. as per the Judgment of the

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad (Ex. W4/1).

10. In view of the fresh materials on merits for both

parties,Mr.B.B.Pandey,Ld.Advocate for the Union/

workman has to submit that MWI J.U.Khan is the Enquiry

Officer, so he is material witness that most of the

management exhibits are meaningless for the purpose of

the evidence on merits that the copy of the alleged

complaint of Jogeshwar Dusadh in lack of proper proof

and justification for its original one is fake and devoid of

any significance, and that the workman got acquittal in the

criminal case for his fraudulent employment .Further it has

been argued by Mr.Pandey.Ld.Advocate for the Union/

workman that the admission of the WW2 Jageshwar

Dusadh that the workman is his son clearly disapproves

the case of the O.P./Management in the reference; so the

workman is alleged to be entitled to his reinstatement with

full back wages with consequential reliefs, and to his

subsistence allowance for the relevant period.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5179

11 Whereas contention of Mr.D.K.Verma,the

Ld.Counsel for the 0.P./management is that the appointment

of the workman Nago Dusadh in place of Ex. workman

Jogeshwar Dusadh is an admitted fact, but the workman in

lack of his substantial evidence has failed to discharge the

onus of proof as the son of Ex-workman Jogeshwar

Dusadh,as the latter had filed the complaint (Ext.M.1)

against the present workman for his fraudulent employment

in place of his daughter Maya Kumari.lt is also further

submitted that the O.P./manmagment with material evidence

has proved its case that the workman ,who is not the son

but fraudulently got his employment as the son of aforesaid

Ex-workman Jogeshwar Dusadh,so his dismissal from the

service by the O.P./Management was quite justified.

12 On perusal and consideration of the afresh

materials as made available by the both the parties on the

case record, I find the following facts:

(i)

The workman Nago Dusadh was appointed

as M/Loader at Murlidih Colliery in the year

1990 at 20/21 Pits on compassionate ground

as he is father Ex-workman Jogeshwar Dusadh

having been medically declered unfit on

15.3.1989,

(ii)

At the complain of Ex-workman Jageswar

(Jageshwar) Dusadh about the present

workman Nag Dusadh to have fraudulently

got employment in place of his daughter Maya

Kumari, the management initiated the

domestic enquiry into it as well as the criminal

case as G.R.No.760/91 based on the F.I.R. of

it(Ext.W.4) in which the workman was

acquitted of the charges U/s 419,420 etc. of

the I.P.C. as per the Judgments dt. 28 6.1995 of

the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Dhanbad,

(Ext.W.4/1) based on the hostile statements

of aforesaid Jogeshwar Dusadh, his alleged

second wife Chinta Devi and Daughter Maya

Devi.

(iii)

It is settled principle of law that a proceeding

of departmental enquiry for the same charges

of fraudulent employment is quite

independent of any criminal case in respect

of the same deliquent irrespective of its any

prejudice to the enquiry.

(iv)

The workman Nago Dusadh has not any

substantial material except his latest Voter

I.D.Card (Ext.W.1) dt.1.1.2003 on his

address, which is unpleaded, hence

inadmissible.

(v)

Whereas with the cogent materials: the

photocopy of Jagesar Dusadh,the Ex-Wagon

Loader (Ext.M.1) the Voter List of 281

Baghmara Vidhan Sabha Nirvachan Chhetra

for the 1988 under SI.No 681 bearing the

name of Nago Paswan S/o Khublal Paswan

(Ext.t.M.9 and 9/1 respectively),and others,

the O.P./Managment has crystal clearly

proved that the workmn was not the son of

Ex-workman Jageshwar (Jagesar) Dusadh,and

that had fraudulently got his appointment as

Miner Loader on compassionate ground in

place of the Ex-workman •Jageshwar Dusad

as his father after being declared medically

unfit,and the said Ex-workman had wanted to

employ his daughter Maya Kumari,but the Ex-

workman later on in collusion with the

workman appeared to be detracted from his

truthful case related to the fraudulent

employment. In view of the findings ,the

arguments of Mr.Pandey,Ld.Counsel for the

Union appears to be unreasonable and

untenable.

In view of the aforesaid facts of the fraudulent

employment of the workman as also found and proved by

the O.P./Management ,the dismissal of the workman being

quite proportionate to the misconduct of grave nature under

provisions 26.1.11,26.1.12 and 26.1.2000 or of the

Certified Standing Order of BCCL is quite legal and

justified punishment. The workman deserves no relief under

Section 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947.

Therefore,in response to the reference,it is hereby

awarded that the action of the Management of Mahuda

Area No.II of the M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Nago

Dusadh is quite legal and justified. So the workman

concerned is not entitled to any relief.Let the copies —

one Soft and one Hard of the Award be sent to the

Ministry,Labour & Employment,New Delhi for information

end needful publication in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1975.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 232 of 1998½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@150@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&I]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 235/

5180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1998) of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

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

workmen, received on 21/08/2013.

[No. L-200012/150/1998-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

In the master of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.

Reference No. 232 of 1998.

PARTIES :

Jt.Secretary, Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor

Union, Dhanbad, Vs. General Manager,

Katras Atrea of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman

Mr. N. M. Kumar,

Ld.Advocate

On behalf of the Management Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Adovcate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th June, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then 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-20012/

150/98-1R (C-I) dated 1/12/1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali

Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Bidhishan

Kumar,M/Loader from the services of the Company

w.e.f. 5/6.11.1996 only on the ground of Unauthorised

absene from 1993 is justified ? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?."

2. The case of workman Bidhisan (Bibhishan) as

sponsored by the Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union is that

the workman was under the treatment as an Indoor patient

at Central Hospital,Dhanbad,for his mental disorder in

respect of which it was informed by his wife Unnate Kamin

to the management time to time. So he had absented from

his duty from 11.3.1993,but after fitness certificate, the

workman sought permission for resumption of his duty.

The management as per its letter no.9228 dt.9.8.1995 had

referred him to the Central Hospital, Dhanbad for treatment.

Despite it, he was charge sheeted for aforesaid unauthorized

absentism as a habitual absentee. The workman was not

given opportunities for cross examination of the

management witnesses, and for his defence in the enquiry

proceeding. The finding of the enquiry is totally one sided

and against the principle of natural justice. It is alleged that

neither treatments papers nor any fitness certificate was

produced. The enquiry report mentions his absence from

duty since lst March on account of his mental illness. In

spite of the charge sheet unsatisfactory, his dismissal order

was passed for the charge of misconduct under clause

26.1.2001. of the Certified Standing Order. His mercy Appeal

was refused by the G.M.concerned without assigning any

reason. As such the dismissal order was entirely illegal,

arbitrary, injustified and contrary to the norms of natural

justice.

3. The Union in its supplementary-cum-rejoinder on

13.4.2005 to the written statement dt.6.11.2002 of the

managements has categorically denied the allegation of

the management, and stated that the death of the workman

would not abate the reference in eye of laws which is

entirely maintainable.

4. Whereas the case of the Opp./Management

concerned is that the present reference is unmaintainable,

the workman was working as a Wagon Loader at Ram Kanali

Colliery, but he absented from his duty from 11.3.1993

without any information or permission from the

management, he did not produce any paper of his treatment

or any information to the management on time. As the

workman was a habitual absentee, he was issued the charge

sheet dt.12.4.1993 for his habitual absentism.When his reply

to the charge sheet was found unsatisfactory, the

departmental enquiry was fairly and in accordance with

the norms of natural justice, conducted by Shri S.N.Dubey

as the appointed Enquiry Officer, and therein the workman

fully participated and was given full opportunity to cross

examine the management witnesses, and to produce his

evidences, but the workman never complained of the

enquiry to the management . After the enquiry, the enquiry

officer held the charge against the workman undoubtedly

proved, so the workman on the approval of the competent

authority was dismissed from the service as per the letter

dt.5/6.11.1996,the had previously put in his only 57 days

attendance in the year 1993 and Nil attendance in the year

1') 0-1-95.So any punishment lesser than the dismissal would

cause indiscipline amidst other employees a affecting

production of Coal and great loss to the Company.

5. Denying categorically the allegations of the union

as baseless in its rejoinder dt.15.9.2003, the

Opp./Management has stated that in view of the said facts,

the action of the management in his dismissal is legal and

justified.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5181

FINDING WITH REASONING

6. In the instant reference case, at no challenge of

the workman to the fairness and propriety of the domestic

enquiry the Tribunal as per its order no.21 dt.5.10.2005

held the enquiry to have been done towards the workman

fairly, properly and according to the principle of natural

justice.

Therefore on account of death of the workman

pendent lite (during the pendency of the case) petitioner

Sri Sukhen Kumar, son of the Late workman on his petition

was substituted for his father as per the Order No. 18

dt.23.2.2004 of the Tribunal. As result, the case directly

came up for hearing the argument of both the partices on

merits.

Mr. N. M. Kukamr, the Learned Counsel for the Union,

submits that the workman (now dead) was a permanent

employee of M/s BCCL as Miner Loader at Ram Kanali

Colliery under Katras Area, but due to mental treatment at

the Central Hospital, Dhanbad for his mental disorder from

11.3.93 to 28.6.96, he got absent from 11.3.1993,though its

information was regularly being given to the management,

he was illegally dismissed from his service on the alleged

charges of unauthorized absentism which was quite illegal

and unjustified. But in the instant case, the status of the

late workman as permanent M/Loader of the colliery is

unpleaded.

Whereas the contention of Mr. D.K. Verma, the

Learned Advocate for the O.P./Management is that the

workman was a habitual absentee, who admittedly

absented from his duty, so after due departmental enquiry

he was legally dismissed as punishment for his misconduct

of absentism.

7 On the perusal of the materials available on the

case record, I find the following facts:

(i)

It is indisputable fact that the workman a

Wagon M/Loader of Ram Kanali Colliery,

unauthorisedly absented from his duty from

11.3.1993,for which he was charge sheeted for

his misconduct.

(ii)

It is evident from the enquiry report

(Ext.M.6)that the Opp./Management was

regualarly informed of his medical treatments

at the Central Hospital, Dhanbad, for his mental

disorder of long time (upto 28.6.1996 )

(iii)

Despite his record of his attendance 57 days

in 1993 and Nil in the years 1994-95 as evidently

separately noted on the left side of the Enquiry

Report, the proceeding has no proof of Second

Show Cause by the Opp. Management to the

workman for his insistent dismissal punishment

for his misconduct of absentism.

(iv)

In view of the aforesaid facts, the dismissal of

the workman was undoubtedly quite

disproportionate to his misconduct, and

unjustified. Were the workman alive, he would

have been awarded with lesser punishment

such as deduction of one increment other than

his absolute dismissal for his proved

misconduct under the provision of sec. 11 A

of the Industrial Dispute Act. So, the dismissal

punishment awarded by the opp. management

to the workman for his misconduct of absentistr

under clause 26.1.1 appears to be liable for

setting aside.

Under these circumstances, it is in terms of the

reference, hereby:

ORDERED

That the action of the Management of Ram Kanali

Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Bidhishan (Bibhishan

Kumar) M/Loader from the service of the Company,w.e.f.5/

6.11.1996 only on the ground of DII unanthorized alisence

from 1993 is legally unjustified. Since the workman expired

on 22.10.2002 during the ency reference, otherwise he

would have been reinstated in his service without back

wages for his In his pendent lite death purely prior to his

superannuation, his son Sukhen Kumar Huk:ice of his

deceased father shall be entitled to employment as his

dependant and all the his father's service for the interest of

his other heirs under rules of the Certified BCCL.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1976.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tjuy eSustj]

eSllZ v'kksd gksVy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uñ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

26@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@119@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1976.—In pursuance of Sction 17of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between The General Manager,

M/s. Ashok Hotel and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 29.07.2013.

[No. L-42011/119/2011-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

5182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 26/2012

The President,

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union (HMS),

C-48-49, Ashok Hotel Staff Qtr.

50-B, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi - 110021.

...Workmen

VERSUS

The General Manager,

M/s Ashok Hotel,

50-B Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi - 110021. ...Management

AWARD

A demi-chef-de partie was found consuming liquor

in kitchen of Ashok Hotel (in short the hotel) on 11.05.2007

at about 17.45 hours. An empty quarter bottle of Aristocrat

Premium whisky was recovered from his possession. He

was taken to the office of the Chief Security Officer, where

panel doctor of the hospital was called. He was examined

by the panel doctor, who found him under influence of

liquor and not in self possession. Since his gait was lurching,

he was escorted to his residence by an employee of the

hotel. Charge sheet was served upon him on 30.05.2007.

He submitted reply to the said charge sheet, which was

found not to be satisfactory. Enquiry Officer was appointed,

who conducted a domestic enquiry. On consideration of

the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority awarded

punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with

cumulative effect to the demi-chef-de partie, vide order

dated 05.09.2009. His appeal was dismissed by the

Appellate Authority. He approached the Ashok Hotel

Mazdoor Janta Union (in short the union) who took up his

cause as their own. The union raised an industrial dispute

before the Conciliation Officer. Since the hotel contested

the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure.

On consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-42011/119/2011-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 23.01.2012

with following terms:

"Whether action of the management of Ashok Hotel

in stopping two annual increments with cumulative

effect vide order dated 05.09.2009 to Shri Shyam

Sunder Goswami S/o Shri Hari Das Goswami, demi-

chef-de partie, token No.4464 is legal and justified.

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the demi-chef-de

partie, namely, Shri Shyam Sunder Goswami pleading

therein that he was working with the hotel since 1988. He

was promoted by the hotel from time to time. Workmen

staff of the hotel is governed by Certified Standing Orders

(herein after referred as the Standing Orders). He was

charge sheeted on 30.05.2007, which was replied by him

vide letter dated 29.06.2007. On consideration of his reply,

the hotel appointed Shri Suresh Chander. Engineer, as

Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry

according to his sweet will, without giving fair

opportunity to him to defend himself. He submitted his

report on 22.06.2009, after a gap of two years. The General

Manager of the hotel served a show cause notice on him

on 31.07.2009, calling upon him to explain as to why his

two annual increments may not be stopped with

cumulative effect. He replied the show cause notice vide

letter dated 07.08.2009. Without taking into account facts

submitted by him in his reply, his two annual increments

were stopped with cumulative effect vide order dated

05.09.2009. The said order is violative of the Standing

Orders. He preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on

29.09.2010. He claims that the punishment order, being

violative of Standing Orders, may be set aside and the

hotel may be commanded to release his annual increment,

stopped pursuant to order dated 05.09.2009.

3. Claim has been demurred by the hotel pleading

that the claimant consumed liquor while on duty and thus

committed serious act of misconduct. Charge sheet was

served on him on 30.05.2007. His reply to the said charge

sheet was found not to be satisfactory. Shri Suresh

Chander, Engineer, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The

Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the claimant to

defend himself. Claimant was allowed to cross examine

the witnesses examined by the hotel and to produce

evidence in his defence. The Enquiry Officer recorded

findings against the claimant. The Disciplinary Authority

served a show cause notice, calling upon him to explain

as to why proposed punishment of stoppage of two

annual increments may not be awarded with commulative

effect. His reply to the show cause notice was taken into

consideration and thereafter punishment of stoppage of

two annual increments with cumulative effect was awarded

to him. His appeal also came to be dismissed. The hotel

had not violated any provisions of the Standing Orders.

Claim presented by the claimant is liable to be dismissed

being untenable, pleads the hotel.

4. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(1)

Whether enquiry conducted by the

management was fair and proper?

(2)

Whether punishment awarded to the claimant

commensurate to his misconduct?

(3)

As in terms of reference.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5183

5. Issue relating to virus of the enquiry was treated

as preliminary issue. Claimant examined himself as well

as Shri S.S. Upadhyay on the preliminary issue. Shri Suresh

Chandra, Enquiry Officer, entered the witness box to testify

facts. On consideration of evidence adduced by the parties

as well as submissions made by them at the bar, preliminary

issue was answered in favour of the hotel and against the

claimant, vide order dated 25.02.2013.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S.S.

Upadhyay, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. None came forward to raise

submissions on behalf of the hotel. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 2

7. As projected, claimant was found consuming liquor

in kitchen of the hotel on 11.05.2007 at about 17.45 hours.

He was examined by the panel doctor of the hotel, who

found him under the influence of liquor and not in his self

possession, the claimant consumed liquor and was found

in inebriated state soon after his duty hours. Considering

his misconduct, charge sheet was served upon him, contents

of which are reproduced thus:

"It has been reported against you that, at about 17.45

hours on 11.05.2007, while performing your duty

from 9.00 a.m. to 5 p.m., you were found creating

nuisance after consuming alcohol in the main kitchen

of the hotel. A bottle of 180 ml. Aristocrat Premium

whisky liquor (half consumed) and a Harpic Power

Toilet Cleaner (500 ml.) were found in your

possession. Immediately, you were brought to the

Office of the Corporate Senior Executive, Chef Shri

M.S. Gupta. Corp. Sr. Executive Chef brought the

whole incident to the notice of Chief Security Officer

telephonically. The Chief Security Officer deputed

Shri B.K. Arya, DSO, Shri Lohit Joshi, Management

Trainee (V&S), Shri S.C. Rana, Security Supervisor

and Shri Deshraj, Security Guard to go to the office

of Corporate Sr. Executive Chef, where they found

you under the influence of alcohol. You alongwith

the bottle of 180 ml. Aristocrat Premium Whisky

liquor (half consumed) and a Harpic Power (toilet

cleaner 500 ml.) were brought the office of the Chief

Security Officer. The whole incident was reported

to the Chief Security Officer (CSO ) by the Duty

Officer, Shri B.K. Arya, telephonically as the CSIO

was busy in the VVIP visit of the Hon'ble President

of India at the Convention Hall of the hotel. As per

instructions of the Chief Security Officer, Lobby

Manager was asked to call Dr.(Smt.) Anita Pal (on

panel) for your medical examination. At about 18.50

hours, Dr. (Smt.) Anita Pal arrived in the hotel and

conducted your medical examination in the presence

of Shri D.K. Arya, DSO, Shri Lohit Joshi,

Management Trainee (V&S), Shri S.C. Rana,

Security Supervisor and Shri Deshraj, Security

Guard. As per her medical certificate, you were

found unable to understand the commands, your gait

was lurching, not able to maintain your balance and

your breathe was smelling of alcohol. During your

medical examination, you, in the presence of Shri

D.K. Arya, DSO, Shri Lohit Joshi, Management

Trainee (V&S), Shri S.C. Rana, Security Supervisor

and Shri Deshraj, Security Guard, also admitted of

having consumed liquor in the hotel premises.

However, you not only refused to give your statement

relating to the incident, but also denied to give your

signatures on the medical certificate issued by the

above doctor as well as on the apprehended liquor

bottle. After completion of your medical

examination, since you were in a drunken state and

even not in a position to walk, a staff car was arranged

to drop you safely in your home and Shri

Dharmendra, Trainee Main Kitchen, in this regard,

was deputed to accompany you.

2. The above acts of yours constitute misconduct and

have been viewed seriously by the management of Ashok

Hotel, New Delhi, under the Certified Standing Order

(Modified) of Ashok Hotel as applicable to you. You are,

therefore, charged for the following acts of misconduct

alleged to have been committed by you under Section 14(I),

14(IX), 14(XLIX), 14(L) and 14(LXVII) of the Certified

Standing Orders (Modified) of Ashok Hotel:

14(I)

Wilful insubordination or disobedience,

whether alone or in combination with

another or others, of any lawful and

reasonable order of a superior.

14(IX)

Commission of any act subversive of

discipline or good behaviour within the

establishment or outside.

14(XLIX) Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or

indecent behaviour during working

hours at the establishment, or any act

subversive of discipline or good

behaviour within the establishment and

all other acts prejudicial to the interest

and reputation of the hotel.

14(L)

Abetment or attempts to commit any of

the above acts/omissions constituting

misconduct.

14(LXVII) Possession or use of any intoxicating

liquors, drugs, narcotics, while in the

premises of the hotel."

8. The Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the

claimant to defend himself. He appreciated evidence

adduced by he Hotel, besides testimony of the claimant

5184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and recorded findings against him. He concludes as follows:

"Shri Shyam Sunder Goswami, CSE was found

creating nuisance at the place of posting in Main

Kitchen and the same was confirmed by Shri Inder

Dutt, Executive Chef, MW-1 through his evidence

recorded on 11.05.2000 that Shri Arvind Rai, Chef

reported the matter to him that Shri Goswami, CSE

was in a drunken state and refused to do work. Shri

Inder Dutt, MW-1 personally went there and saw

the CSE in a drunken state. At that time, a bottle of

180 ml. Aristocrat Premium Whiskey liquor (half

consumed) and a Harpic Power (Toilet Cleaner 500

ml. ) was found in his possession. Immediately the

matter was reported to Corporate Sr. Executive Chef

Shri M.S. Gupta. Through his evidence, Shri M.S.

Gupta, MW-7 confirmed that, at about 6.00 p.m. Shri

Goswami, CSE, who reported to be in a drunken state,

was brought to his office. He (MW-7) advised the

Executive Chef to refer the matter to V&S Department

for further action.

There is no dispute that Sh.Goswami, CSE, along

with a bottle of 180 ml Aristocrat Premium Whiskey liquor

(half consumed) and a Harpic Power (Toilet Cleaner 500

ml), were brought to the office of Chief Security Office at

2nd floor by the Security Personnel S/Sh.Shakti Singh

Rana, MW-2, Desh Raj, MW-3, and Sh.Lohit Joshi, MW-5,

which confirmed through their documentary as well as oral

evidences recorded through enquiry proceedings. At about

1810, Sh.Lohit Joshi, MW-5 asked the Labby Manager over

telephone to call panel doctor for medical examination of

Sh.Goswami, CSE. At around 1835, Dr.Anita Pal, Panel

Doctor, carried out the medical examination of the CSE and

submitted his Medical Report dated 11.05.2007 (Ex.M-11),

which confirmed "ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION". As per

his Medical Report dated 11.05.2007 (Ex.M-11), it is certified

that Sh.Goswami, CSE was not able to understand the

commands. His gait was lurching and was not able to

maintain his balance. His breath was smeling of alcohol.

He admitted consuming quarter of alcohol. The

Management has established that the medical examination

of Sh.Goswami, CSE was conducted by Dr.Anita Pal, Panel

Doctor in the presence of S/Sh.B.K.Arya, DSO, MW-4,

Lohit Joshi, Management Trainee (V&S), MW-5, Shakti

Singh Rana, Security Supervisor, MW-2 and Desh Raj,

Security Guard, MW-3. During the enquiry proceedings,

the defence did not deny that his medical examination was

carried out by Dr.Anita Pal. Hence, it is a matter of no

dispute that his medical examination was carried out by

Dr.Anita Pal and as per his medical report it was established

that the CSE was under the influrnece of alcohol".

"On the basis of documents filed, witness produced

and the above discussion, charges levelled against

Shri Shyam Sunder Goswami, Demi-chef-de partie,

Gd.I, Token No.4469, vide charge sheet No.PB-

15(121)/4469 dated 30.05.2007, stands PROVED.

However, the contention of the defence that there is

no other complaint against the CSE merits

consideration by the Competent Authority as during

the enquiry, CSE was co-operative and well

behaved."

9. With a view to come out of the trauma, the claimant

agitates that provisions of the Standing Orders, proved as

Ex.MW1/W1, were violated. His thrust of contention has

been that as per section 16 of the Standing Orders, charge

sheet is to be served upon the delinquent employee within

30 days and enquiry is to be completed within six months

from the date of issue of charge sheet. Shri Upadhyay

argued that the Enquiry Officer had taken two years in

conclusion of the enquiry. He asserts that since section 16

of the Standing Orders has been violated, entire proceedings

stood washed off. In order to appreciate submissions made

by Shri Upadhyay, it is expedient to have glance on relevant

portion of section 16 of the Standing Orders, which is

reproduced thus:

'If a punishment under Sub-Section IV to VIII of

Section 15 above is to be awarded, the workman

concerned should be served with a charge sheet within

30 days and enquiry will be completed within six

months from the date of issuing charge sheet and an

enquiry as set out in sub-para III below must be held."

10. As detailed above, the Standing Orders

constrains the employer to serve charge sheet on a

delinquent official within 30 days. It has been also

stipulated therein that the enquiry will be completed within

six months from the date of issuance of the charge sheet,

which enquiry should be held as per procedure, provided

in sub-para (III) of the said section. As far as fairness of the

procedure of the enquiry is concerned, the Tribunal had

recorded facts against the claimant. Now, it would be

ascertained as to whether delay in conclusion of the enquiry

vitiates the proceedings. For an answer, it is to be

ascertained whether period of six months, provided for

completion of the enquiry, is mandatory one. The answer

lies in negative. Phrase 'enquiry will be completed within

six months" used in para (ii) of section 16 of the Standing

Orders on its construction makes it apparent that the above

phrase is directory and not mandatory. If a provision is

mandatory, an act done in breach thereof will be invalid but

if it is directory, the act will be valid although the non-

compliance may give rise to some other penalty if provided

by the statute. The use of word 'shall' raises a presumption

that the particular provision is imperative, but this prima

facie inference may be rebutted by other considerations

such as object and scope of the enactment and the

consequences flowing from such construction. There are

numerous cases where the word 'shall' has, therefore, been

construed as merely directory. See Shew Bux Mohata (AIR

1961 SC 1453), Hazari Mal Kuthiala (AIR 1961 SC 200),

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5185

Banarsi Das (AIR 1963 SC 1417), Raza Buland Sugar Co.

Ltd.(AIR 1965 SC 895), Azad Bharat Finance Co.(AIR 1967

SC 276), Krishna Kumar Mediratta (AIR 1979 SC 984),

Ganesh Prasad Shah Kesari (AIR 1985 SC 964), Paradise

Printers (AIR 1988 SC 354) and Rubber House (AIR 1989

SC 1160).

11. The word 'shall' is ordinarily mandatory, but it is

sometimes not so interpreted if the context or intention

otherwise demands. The court may ascertain the real

intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the

whole scope of the statute. When provisions of section 16

of the Standing Orders are construed in the light of above

precedents, it emerges that the above provisions imposes a

duty on the hotel to serve a charge sheet on a delinquent

employee and to conduct a domestic enquiry, when the

latter commits a misconduct. A time frame is also given

therein within which a charge sheet is to be served and

domestic enquiry to be concluded. In case of rigid

adherence to the time frame, given for service of charge

sheet and conclusion of the enquiry, injustice or

inconvenience would result. Delinquent employee may

adopt dilatory tactics or misconduct may be detected after

a long delay. Consideration of these aspects make it

apparent that time frame, indicated in para (ii) of section

16 of the Standing Orders, is directory and not mandatory.

Precedent in Urbanowski [1976 (1) All.E.R. 697] give

support to above construction wherein it has been ruled

that where a public officer is directed by a statute to perform

a duty within a specified time, the cases establish that

provision as to time are only directory. Similarly, it has

been held while construing section 17(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 that it is obligatory on the Government

to publish an award, but the provision, that it should be

published within thirty days, is not mandatory and an award

published beyond 30 days is not invalid. Also see

Remington Rand of India (AIR 1968 SC 224), Manzoor

Khan (AIR 1973 SC 2548) and Karnal Leather Karamchari

Sangthan (AIR 1990 SC 247).

12. Above reasons give support to the construction

that para (ii) of section 16 of the Standing Orders is not

mandatory and delay in conclusion of the enquiry would

not vitiate report of the Enquiry Officer. The claimant made

a frivolous claim to the effect that on account of delay in

conclusion of the enquiry punishment awarded by the

Disciplinary Authority stood vitiated. Contention raised in

that regard is brushed aside.

13. Section 14 (VIII) of Ex.MW1/W1 highlights that

drunkenness, fighting, riotous, disorderly or indecent

behavior within the establishment of the hotel has been

coined as misconduct. Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly

or indecent behavior during working hours at the

establishment or any act subversive of discipline or good

behavior within the establishment and all other acts

prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the hotel have

also been coined as acts of misconduct under section

14(LXIX) of the Standing Order Ex.MW1/W1. The hotel

may award minor major punishment for acts of misconduct,

depending upon its gravity, such as : (i) warning, (ii) fine

(not exceeding three paisa for every rupee of the basic

salary), and (iii) recovery to the full extent of actual amount

of loss caused to the company.

14. When an employee commits grave misconduct,

the hotel may award major punishment to him. Although

there is no codified law prohibiting an employer from

inflicting any major punishment, yet the industrial

adjudicator has to assess as to whether the misconduct,

proved against the delinquent employee, could be visited

with the penalty. Major punishment which can be awarded

to a delinquent employee are:

(i)

Withholding of increments for any specific

period with or without cumulative effect,

(ii)

Demotion to a lower post, lower grade, lower

place in the scale of pay or lower scale of pay,

(iii)

Termination of service,

(iv)

Discharge from service,

(v)

Dismissal from service"

15. As projected in the report of the Enquiry Officer,

claimant consumed alcohol in the kitchen of the hotel. He

was found in inebriated state soon after his duty hours.

Therefore, his act of misconduct falls within section

14(VIII) and 14 (XLIX) of the Standing Orders Ex.MW1/

W1. He consumed liquor in the premises of the hotel. A

farm labour may perform his duties efficiently, inspite of

intoxication and his intemperance may not justify major

penalty. But in a highly organized business with large staff

an inebriated employee is likely to come in contact with

several persons. His intoxication would be noticeable to

others and affect his employer's business adversely. Such

an employee would interfere in discharge of duties of other

staff. These factors make it apparent that the act of being

in drunken state at the premises of employer constitutes a

serious misconduct. Even otherwise such an act is

subversive of discipline also, since his conduct shows

contempt of prevailing rules and disrespect to the authority.

16. Stoppage of two increments with cummulative

effect means that the claimant would not get increment

during the period of two years in future also and loss of

pay will ensure for whole of the remaining tenure of the

employee affecting his pension on retirement. Withholding

of increment with cummulative effect is different from

simply withholding increment and is a major penalty. The

penalty awarded to the claimant commensurate to the act

of misconduct committed by him. As projected above, he

was found in an inebriated state in the kitchen soon after

his duty hours. Half employ quarter bottle of whisky was

found in his possession besides a Harpic Power (toilet

5186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cleaner). These facts are indicative that either he started

consuming liquor during his duty hours or soon thereafter.

He did not leave his work place and consumed liquor there

itself. All these facts, complied with the surrounding

circumstances, make it apparent that punishment awarded

to the claimant cannot be termed excessive. It

commensurate to the misconduct committed by him. The

issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the hotel and

against the claimant.

Issue No. 3

17. Relief is claimed projecting that the punishment

awarded to the claimant was discriminative. Shri Upadhyay

argued that the claimant has been discriminated by the hotel

in the matter of award of punishment. To project his point

of view, he has relied on charge sheet ExWW1/4 served

upon one Shri Bhagwan Dass, besides order of his

punishment, which is Ex.WW2/8. As emerge out of

ExWW1/4, Shri Bhagwan Das was working as store keeper,

uniform store of the hotel. He bolted the store from inside

on 17.06.2009 at 13.00 hours and allowed Shri Prakash to

consume liquor there. Thus it is evident that Shri Bhagwan

Dass facilitated Shri Prakash to consume liquor, during

duty hours. He, himself, had not consumed any liquor.

Misconduct committed by Shri Bhagwan Dass was of

facilitating someone in consumption of liquor. It was

different than the misconduct committed by the claimant.

Therefore, punishment awarded to Shri Bhagwan Dass

would not come as an illustration in the matter. The

claimant cannot claim parity with Shri Bhagwan Dass in

the matter of punishment.

18. Ex.WW1/4 also highlights that Shri Prakash,

Utility Worker, consumed liquor inside the uniform store

on 17.06.2009. When charge sheet was served on

Shri Prakash, he admitted his guilt and requested for a

lenient view. Utility Worker was away from his duty place

at the time of consumption of liquor. He showed feeling of

remorse and pleaded his guilt. He did not attempt to forge

a defence for his acts. He expressed regrets and assured

improvement of his conduct in future. Furthermore he was

not found under influence of liquor and loss of self

possession. Thus mere fact that lesser punishment was

awarded to Shri Prakash while punishment of stoppage of

two annual increments with cummulative effect was

awarded to the claimant would not by itself show

discrimination in punishment.

19. Records tell that when the claimant consumed

liquor in the kitchen and went in the state of inebriation,

Hon'ble President of India was to visit Convention Half of

the hotel at that time. Such a misconduct at the time of visit

of V.V.I.P. in the hotel makes the misconduct more alarming.

The fact that the gait of the claimant was lurching project

that he was not in self possession. These facts make it

apparent that the degree of misconduct, committed by the

claimant, was the gravest while misconduct committed by

Shri Prakash was condonable. Hence the claimant could

not show any parity in misconduct committed by him and

Shri Prakash to show discrimination in punishment, awarded

him.

Resultantly,

submissions

made

Shri Upadhyay are found to be unacceptable.

20. Punishment awarded to the claimant is found to

be just and proper. No illegality is noticed in the action of

the hotel, justifying interference by the Tribunal. The above

reasons make me to comment that punishment awarded to

the claimant was in consonance with the Standing Orders

Ex.MW1/W1. Claimant is not entitled to any relief. An

award is passed in favour of the hotel and against the

claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated : 9-7-2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1977.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,vj Vsy lfoZl fyñ ,aM vnZl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua&1] ubZ fnYYkh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 73@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@43@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between The M/s. Bharti Airtel Services

Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29.07.2013.

[No. L-40011/43/2011-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.73/2012

Shri Rajiv Khanna,

S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Khanna,

Senior Technician,

C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji,

New Delhi – 110 010

...Workman/Claimant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5187

Versus

(1)

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Limited 224, Okhla

Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi 110 020

Also at

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002

...Management No.1

(2)

M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Network Management Services

Ltd., 15th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green

DLF City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002

....Management No.2

AWARD

A Senior Technician, who was given a glorified

designation of an Officer, joined services with M/s. Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as management

No.1) on 05.03.2007. He served management No.1 till

31.07.2009, the date when he tendered his resignation. His

resignation was accepted by management No.1 on that

very day and wages for the month of July 2009 as well as

some amount towards full and final settlement was given

to him. Thereafter, he joined services with M/s. Alcatel

Lucent Network Management Services Pvt. Ltd.( in short

the management No.2) on 01.08.2009. However, he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer claiming that his

services were terminated by management No.1 in an illegal

manner. Since his claim was contested, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi, for adjudication vide

order No. L-40011/43/2011-1R(DU) New Delhi dated

10.02.2012 with following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating services of

Shri Rajiv Khanna, S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Khanna,

ex-Senior Technician with effect from 01.08.2009 is

legal and justified. What relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the Parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Senior

Technician, namely, Shri Madan Singh opted not to file his

claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Rajiv Khanna by registered

post on 05.03.2012, calling upon him to file claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 09.04.2012. This notice

was sent to him through All India General Mazdoor Trade

Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji, New Delhi,

the address provided by the appropriate Government in

order of reference.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 15.05.2012 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on 06.09.2012. Another notice

was transmitted to the claimant by registered post on

06.09.2012 asking him to file his claim statement on or before

17.12.2012.

5. Vide notification No.A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II, New

Delhi dated 03.04.2013, additional charge of the post of the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No.II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned by the

appropriate Government and thus the case reached this

Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Notice dated 11.05.2013 was sent by registered

post commanding the claimant to file his claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 28.06.2013. Neither the

postal article was received back nor was it observed by the

Tribunal that postal services remained affected from

11.05.2013 till 28.06.2013. Therefore, every presumption lies

in favaur of the fact that the above notice was served upon

the claimant. Despite service of this notice, claimant opted

to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement

was filed on his behalf.

7. Order of reference projects a question as to whether

action of M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating

services of Shri Rajiv Khanna with effect from 01.08.2009 is

legal and justified? Onus is there on management No.1 to

project that its action of terminating services of

Shri Rajiv Khanna was legal and justified. Consequently,

management No.1 was called upon to file its response to

the reference order. In pursuance of the directions so

issued, management No.1 filed its response to the reference

order.

8. When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged

that Shri Rajiv Khanna joined services with management

No.1 on 05.03.2007 with a glorified designation of an Officer.

Shri Rajiv Khanna served management No.1 till July 2009.

He tendered his resignation, which was accepted by

management No.1 on 31.07.2009. His wages amounting to

Rs.6036.00 were paid. Besides wages, a sum of Rs.5879.00

was also paid to the claimant towards leave encashment.

After getting his dues, claimant left services of management

No.1. He joined management No.2 on 01.08.2009. His basic

salary, which he is getting from management No.2, is

Rs.5256.00, besides house rent allowance of Rs.3403.00,

conveyance allowance of Rs.800.00 and special allowance

of Rs.3944.00. Thus, he gets a sum of Rs.13715.00 from

management No.2, which is higher than the wages which

he was getting from management No.1. It is evident that

Shri Rajiv Khanna resigned the job of management No.1 in

search of greener pastures. It is apparent that management

5188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No.1 has not taken any steps to terminate services of Shri

Rajiv Khanna.

9. As unfolded by management No.2, the claimant

was appointed by them on 01.08.2009. It is further projected

that he is still in employment with them. The management

No.2 further presents that its name has been changed to

M/s Telesonic Network Ltd. with effect from 25.02.2013.

Certificate issued by Registrar of Companies has been

placed before the Tribunal in that regard. Consequently, it

is evident that the management No.2 is the employer of the

claimant since 01.08.2009, which fact establishes the stand

taken by management No.1.

10. Nothing has been brought over the record by

Shri Rajiv Khanna to establish that his services were

terminated by management No.1. On the other hand,

management No.1 could demonstrate that Shri Rajiv

Khanna resigned the job for good. He joined services with

management No.2, where he was offered better emoluments.

Consequently, it is concluded that management No.1 had

not taken any action in terminating services of Shri Rajiv

Khanna. It was the employee who tendered his resignation

and marched away. Under these circumstances, neither any

illegality nor unjustifiability can be noted on the part of

management No.1.Shri Rajiv Khanna is,not entitled to any

relief. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated June 28, 2013

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1978.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,vj Vsy lfoZl fyñ ,aM vnZl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ 1] ubZ fnYYkh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 74@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@44@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between The M/s. Bharti Airtel Services

Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29.07.2013.

[No. L-40011/44/2011-IR(DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.74/2012

Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary

C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170,

Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji, New Delhi — 110 010

Workman/Claimant

Versus

(1)

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Limited

224, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Ill, New Delhi

110 020

Also at

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002

Management No.1

(2)

M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Network Management Services

Ltd.,

15th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green DLF City,

Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002

Management No.2

AWARD

A Senior Technician, who was given a glorified

designation of a Senior Officer, joined services with

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as

management No.1) on 12.02.2007. He served management

No.1 till 17.02.2011, the date when he tendered his

resignation. His resignation was accepted by management

No.1 on that very day and wages for the month of February

2011 as well as some amount towards full and final settlement

was given to him. He raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer claiming that his services were terminated by

management No.1 in an illegal manner. Since his claim was

contested, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation

Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute

to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New

Delhi, for adjudication vide order No.L-40011/44/2011-1R(DU)

New Delhi dated 10.02.2012 with following terms:

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

Bharti Airtel Services Ltd., New Delhi in terminating

services of Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary, S/o

Shri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, ex-Sr. Technician with

effect from 17.02.2011 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to?'

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5189

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Senior

Technician, namely, Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary

opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Madhukar Kumar

Chaudhary by registered post on 14.03.2012, calling upon

him to file claim statement before the Tribunal on or

before 09.04.2012. This notice was sent to him through

All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170, Bal

Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji, New Delhi, the address

provided by the appropriate Government in order of

reference.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the

claimant to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent

to him by registered post on 15.05.2012 calling upon him

to file claim statement before the Tribunal on 06.09.2012.

Another notice was transmitted to the claimant by

registered post on 06.09.2012 asking him to file his claim

statement on or before 17.12.2012.

5. Vide notification No.A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II,

New Delhi dated 03.04.2013, additional charge of the

post of the Presiding Officer, Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No.II, New Delhi, was assigned to the

undersigned by the appropriate Government and thus the

case reached this Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Notice dated 11.05.2013 was sent by registered

post commanding the claimant to file his claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 28.06.2013. •Neither

the postal article was received back nor was it observed

by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from

11.05.2013 till 28.06.2013. Therefore, every presumption

lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served

upon the claimant. Despite service of this notice, claimant

opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim

statement was filed on his behalf.

7. Order of reference projects a question as to

whether action of M/s Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in

terminating services of Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary

with effect from 01.08.2009 is legal and justified? Onus

is there on management No.1 to project that its action of

terminating services of Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary

was legal and justified. Consequently, management No.1

was called upon to file its response to the reference order.

In pursuance of the directions so issued, management No.1

filed its response to the reference order.

8. When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged

that Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary joined services

with management No.1 on 12.02.2007 with a glorified

designation of a Senior Officer. Shri Madhukar Kumar

Chaudhary served management No.1 till 17.02.2011. He

tendered his resignation, which was accepted by

management No.1 on 17.02.2011. His wages amounting to

Rs.11309.00 were paid. Besides wages, a sum of

Rs.61616.00 was paid as other allowance, Rs.8033.00 as

pay in lieu of notice and Rs.16735.00 were paid to the

claimant towards leave encashment. After getting his

dues, claimant left services of management No.1, for good.

9. It has been pleaded by management No.2, the

claimant never served them in any capacity. It has been

made a party to the dispute in order to extort illegal gains

from Management No.1. Management No.2 further

presents that its name has been changed to M/s. Telesonic

Network Ltd. with effect from 25.02.2013. Certificate issued

by Registrar of Companies has been placed before the

Tribunal in that regard.

10. Nothing has been brought over the record by

Shri Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary to establish that his

services were terminated by management No.1. Hence, it

is concluded that management No.1 had not taken any

action in terminating services of Shri Madhukar Kumar

Chaudhary. On the other hand, it was the employee who

tendered his resignation and marched away. Under these

circumstances, neither any illegality nor unjustifiablity

can be noted on the part of management No. 1 Shri

Madhukar Kumar Chaudhary is not entitled to any relief.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: June 28, 2013

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1979.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,vj Vsy lfoZl fyñ ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 75@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@45@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between The M/s. Bharti Airtel Services

Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29-7-2013.

[No. L-40011/45/2011-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

5190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 75/2012

Shri Madan Singh,

C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji,

New Delhi -110 010

...Workman/Claimant

Versus

(1)

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Limited, 224, Okhla

Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi-110 020

Also at

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

...Management No.1

(2)

M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Network Management Services

Ltd., 15th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green DLF City,

Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

...Management No. 2

AWARD

A Technician, who was given a glorified designation

of an Officer, joined services with M/s. Bharti Airtel Ssrvices

Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as management No.1) on

01.04.2006. He served management No.1 till 31.07.2009, the

date when he tendered his resignation. His resignation

was accepted by management No.1 on that very day and

wages for the month of July 2009 as well as some amount

towards full and final settlement was given to him.

Thereafter, he joined services with M/s. Alcatel Lucent

Network Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (in short the

management No. 2) on 01.08.2009. However, he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer claiming that his

services were terminated by management No.1 in an illegal

manner. Since his claim was contested, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi for adjudication vide

order No. L-40011/45/2011-IR (DU) New Delhi dated

10.02.2012 with following terms:

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

Bharti Airtel Services Ltd., in terminating services of

Shri Madan Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh, ex-

Technician with effect from 01.08.2009 is legal and

justified. What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Senior

Technician, namely, Shri Madan Singh opted not to file his

claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Madan Singh by registered

post on 14.03.2012, calling upon him to file claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 09.04.2012. This notice

was sent to him through All India General Mazdoor Trade

Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand Girl, Kalkaji, New Delhi,

the address provided by the appropriate Government in

order of reference.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 15.05.2012 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on 06.09.2012. Another

notice was transmitted to the claimant by registered post

on 06.09.2012 asking him to file his claim statement on or

before 17.12.2012.

5. Vide notification No. A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II, New

Delhi dated 03.04.2013, additional charge of the post of the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No. II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned by the

appropriate Government and thus the case reached this

Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Notice dated 11.05.2013 was sent by registered

post commanding the claimant to file his claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 28.06.2013. Neither the

postal article was received back nor was it observed by the

Tribunal that postal services remained affected from

11.05.2013 till 28.06.2013. Therefore, every presumption lies

in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon

the claimant. Despite service of this notice, claimant opted

to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement

was filed on his behalf.

7. Order of reference projects a question as to whether

action of M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating

services of Shri Madan Singh with effect from 01.08.2009 is

legal and justified? Onus is there on management No.1 to

project that its action of terminating services of Shri Madan

Singh was legal and justified. Consequently, management

No.1 was called upon to file its response to the reference

order. In pursuance of the directions so issued, management

No.1 filed its response to the reference order.

8. When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged

that Shri Madan Singh joined services with management

No.1 on 01.04.2006 with a glorified designation of an Officer.

Shri Madan Singh served management No.1 till July 2009.

He tendered his resignation, which was accepted by

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5191

management No.1 on 31.07.2009. His wages amounting to

Rs.8246.00 were paid. Besides wages, a sum of Rs.11464.00

was also paid to the claimant towards leave encashment.

After getting his dues, claimant left services of management

No.1. He joined management No. 2 on 01.08.2009. His basic

salary, which he is getting from management No. 2, is Rs.

6404.00, besides house rent allowance of Rs. 3909.00,

conveyance allowance of Rs. 800.00 and special allowance

of Rs. 5914.00. Thus, he gets a sum of Rs. 17027.00 from

management No. 2, which is higher than the wages which

he was getting from management No.1. It is evident that

Shri Madan Singh resigned the job of management No.1 in

search of greener pastures. It is apparent that management

No.1 has not taken any steps to terminate services of Shri

Madan Singh.

9. As unfolded by management No. 2, the claimant

was appointed by them on 01.08.2009. It is further projected

that he is still in employment with them. The management

No. 2 further presents that its name has been changed to

M/s. Telesonic Network Ltd. with effect from 25.02.2013.

Certificate issued by Registrar of Companies has been

placed before the Tribunal in that regard. Consequently, it

is evident that the management No. 2 is the employer of the

claimant since 01.08.2009, which fact establishes the stand

taken by management No.1.

10. Nothing has been brought over the record by

Shri Madan Singh to establish that his services were

terminated by management No. l. On the other hand,

management No.1 could demonstrate that Shri Madan

Singh resigned the job for good. He joined services with

management No. 2, where he was offered better emoluments.

Consequently, it is concluded that management No.1 had

not taken any action in terminating services of Shri Madan

Singh. It was the employee who tendered his resignation

and marched away. Under these circumstances, neither any

illegality nor unjustifiability can be noted on the part of

management No. l. Shri Madan Singh is not entitled to any

relief. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1980.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,vjVsy lfoZl fyñ ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k es fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29&07&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@46@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between The M/s. Bharti Airtel Services

Ltd. and others and their workman which was received by

the Central Government on 29-7-2013.

[No. L-40011/46/2011-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 76/2012

Shri Laxmi Kant

C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110 010 ...Workman/Claimant

VERSUS

(1)

M/s Bharti Airtel Services Limited

224, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,

New Delhi-110 020

Also at

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

...Management No. 1

(2)

M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Network Management Services

Ltd., 15th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green DLF City,

Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

...Management No. 2

AWARD

A Senior Technician, who was given a glorified

designation of an Officer, joined services with M/s Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as management

No.1) on 11.09.2006. He served management No.1 till

31.07.2009, the date when he tendered his resignation. His

resignation was accepted by management No.1 on that

very day and wages for the month of July 2009 as well as

some amount towards full and final settlement was given

to him. Thereafter, he joined services with M/s Alcatel

Lucent Network Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (in short

the management No.2) on 01.08.2009. However, he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer claiming that his

services were terminated by management No.1 in an illegal

manner. Since his claim was contested, conciliation

5192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi for adjudication vide

order No.L-40011/46/2011-IR(DU) New Delhi dated

10.02.2012 with following terms:

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

Airtel Services Ltd., in terminating services of Shri

Laxmi Kant S/o Late Shri Baladhutt, ex-Sr.

Technician with effect from 01.08.2009 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the to the dispute to file statement of claim,

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement

of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions, so given, the Senior Technician, namely,

Shri Laxmi Kant opted not to file his claim statement with

the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Laxmi Kant by registered

post on 14.03.2012, calling upon him to file claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 09.04.2012. This notice

was sent to him through All India General Mazdoor Trade

Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji, New Delhi,

the address provided by the appropriate Government in

order of reference.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 15.05.2012 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on' 06.09.2012. Another

notice was transmitted to the claimant by registered post

on 06.09.2012 asking him to file his claim statement on or

before 17.12.2012.

5. Vide notification No.A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II,

New Delhi dated 03.04.2013, additional charge of the post

of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No.II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned

by the appropriate Government and thus the case reached

this Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Notice dated 11.05.2013 was sent by registered

post commanding the claimant to file his claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 28.06.2013. Neither the

postal article was received back nor was it observed by the

Tribunal that postal services remained affected from

11.05.2013 till 28.06.2013. Therefore, every presumption

lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served

upon the claimant. Despite service of this notice, claimant

opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim

statement was filed on his behalf.

7. Order of reference projects a question as to whether

action of M/s Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating

services of Shri Laxmi Kant with effect from 01.08.2009 is

legal and justified? Onus is there on management No.1 to

project that its action of terminating services of Shri Laxmi

Kant was legal and justified. Consequently, management

No.1 was called upon to file its response to the reference

order. In pursuance of the directions so issued, management

No.1 filed its response to the reference order.

8. When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged

that Shri Laxmi Kant joined services with management No.1

on 01.04.2006 with a glorified designation of an Officer.

Shri Laxmi Kant served management No.1 till July 2009. He

tendered his resignation, which was accepted by

management No.1 on 31.07.2009. His wages amounting to

Rs.6022.00 were paid. Besides wages, a sum of Rs.8550.00

was also paid to the claimant towards leave encashment.

After getting his dues, claimant left services of management

No.1. He joined management No.2 on 01.08.2009. His basic

salary, which he is getting from management No.2, is

Rs.5103.00, besides house rent allowance of Rs.3035.00,

conveyance allowance of Rs.800.00 and special allowance

of Rs.4129.00. Thus, he gets a sum of Rs.13068.00 from

management No.2, which is higher than the wages which

he was getting from management No.1. It is evident that

Shri Laxmi Kant resigned the job of management No.1 in

search of greener pastures. It is apparent that management

No.1 has not taken any steps to terminate services of Shri

Laxmi Kant.

9. As unfolded by management No.2, the claimant

was appointed by them on 01.08.2009. It is further projected

that he is still in employment with them. The management

No.2 further presents that its name has been changed to

M/s Telesonic Network Ltd. with effect from 25.02.2013.

Certificate issued by Registrar of Companies has been

placed before the Tribunal in that regard. Consequently, it

is evident that the management No.2 is the employer of the

claimant since 01.08.2009, which fact establishes the stand

taken by management No.1.

10. Nothing has been brought over the record by

Shri Laxmi Kant to establish that his services were terminated

by management No.1. On the other hand, management No.1

could demonstrate that Shri Laxmi Kant resigned the job

for good. He joined services with management No.2, where

he was offered better emoluments. Consequently, it is

concluded that management No.1 had not 'taken any action

in terminating services of Shri Laxmi Kant. It was the

employee who tendered his resignation and marched away.

Under these circumstances, neither any illegality nor

unjustifiability can be noted on the part of management

No.1. Shri Laxmi Kant is not entitle to any relief. An award

is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: June 28, 2013

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5193

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1981.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,vj Vsy lfoZl fyñ ,aM vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 1] ubZ fnYYkh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 77@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@47@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between The M/s Bharti Airtel Services

Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29.07.2013

[No. L-40011/47/2011-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No 77/2012

Shri Sandeep Kumar,

C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170, Bal

Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110 010

...Workman/Claimant

VERSUS

(1)

M/s Bharti Airtel Services Limited 224, Okhla

Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi-110 020

Also at :

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

...Management No.1

(2)

M/s Alcatel-Lucent Network Management Services

Ltd., 15th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Green DLF

City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

...Management No.2

AWARD

A Senior Technician, who was given a glorified

designation of an Officer, joined services with M/s. Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as management

No.1) on 01.03.2007. He served management No.1 till

31.07.2009, the date when he tendered his resignation. His

resignation was accepted by management No.1 on that very

day and wages for the month of July 2009 as well as some

amount towards full and final settlement was given to him.

Thereafter, he joined services with M/s Alcatel Lucent

Network Management Services Pvt. Ltd. in short the

management No.2) on 01.08.2009. However, he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer claiming that his

services were terminated by management No.1 .in an illegal

manner. Since his claim was contested, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi for

adjudication vide order No.L-40011/47/2011-IR(DU)

New Delhi dated 10.02.2012 with following terms :

"Whether the action of the management of

M/s Bharti Airtel Services Ltd., in terminating

services of Shri Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Devender

Kumar, ex-Senior Technician with effect from

01.08.2009 is legal and justified. What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Senior

Technician, namely, Shri Sandeep Kumar opted not to file

his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Sandeep Kumar by

registered post on 14.03.2012, calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 09.04.2012. This

notice was sent to him through All India General Mazdoor

Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji,

New Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate

Government in order of reference.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 15.05.2012 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal On 06.09.2012. Another

notice was transmitted to the claimant by registered post

on 06.09.2012 asking him to file his claim statement on or

before 17.12.2012.

5. Vide notification No.A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II, New

Delhi dated 03.04.2013, additional charge of the post of the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No.II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned by the

appropriate Government and thus the case reached this

Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Notice dated 11.05.2013 was sent by registered

post commanding the claimant to file his claim statement

5194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before the Tribunal on or before 28.06.2013. Neither the

postal article was received back nor was it observed by the

Tribunal that postal services remained affected from

11.05.2013 till 28.06.2013. Therefore, every presumption lies

in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon

the claimant. Despite service of this notice, claimant opted

to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement

was filed on his behalf.

7. Order of reference projects a question as to whether

action of M/s Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating

services of Shri Sandeep Kumar with effect from

01.08.2009 is legal and justified? Onus is there on

management No.1 to project that its action of terminating

services of Shri Sandeep Kumar was legal and justified.

Consequently, management No.1 was called upon to file

its response to the reference order. In pursuance of the

directions so issued, management No.1 filed its response

to the reference order.

8. When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged

that Shri Sandeep Kumar joined services with management

No.1 on 01.03.2007 with .a glorified designation of an

Officer. Shri Sandeep Kumar served management No.1 till

July 2009. He tendered his resignation, which was accepted

by management No.1 on 31.07.2009. His wages amounting

to Rs.6318.00 were paid. Besides wages, a sum of Rs.7289.00

was also paid to the claimant towards leave encashment.

After getting his dues, claimant left services of

management No.1. He joined mananagement No. 2 on

01.08.2009. His basic salary, which he is getting from

management No.2, is Rs. 6027.00, besides house rent

allowance of Rs.4369.00, conveyance allowance of

Rs.800.00 and special allowance of Rs.4768.00. Thus, he

gets a sum of Rs.15964.00 from management No.2, which is

higher than the wages which he was getting from

management No.1. It is evident that Shri Sandeep Kumar

resigned the job of management No.1 in search of greener

pastures. It is apparent that management No.1 has not taken

any steps to terminate services of Shri Sandeep Kumar.

9. As unfolded by management No.2, the claimant

was appointed by them on 01.08.2009. It is further projected

that he is still in employment with them. The management

No.2 further presents that its name has been changed to

M/s Telesonic Network Ltd. with effect from 25.02.2013.

Certificate issued by Registrar of Companies has been

placed before the Tribunal in that regard. Consequently, it

is evident that the management No.2 is the employer of the

claimant since 01.08.2009, which fact establishes, the stand

taken by management No.1.

10.Nothing has been brought over the record by

Shri Sandeep Kumar to establish that his services were

terminated by management No.1. On the other hand,

management No.1 could demonstrate that Shri Sandeep

Kumar resigned the job for good. He joined services with

management No.2, where he was offered better emoluments.

Consequently, it is concluded that management No.1 had

not taken any action in terminating services of Shri Sandeep

Kumar. It was the employee who tendered his resignation

and marched away. Under these circumstances, neither any

illegality nor unjustifiability can be noted on the part of

management No.1. Shri Sandeep Kumar is not entitled to

any relief. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: June 28, 2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1982.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj

¼,eñlhñMhñ½ pkWanuh pkSd ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua-&1] ubZ fnYYkh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 86@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-

07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@228@2010&vkbZñvkjñ¼Mhñ ;wñ½]

lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 86/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between The Commissioner (MCD)

Chandi Chowk and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29.07.2013

[No. L-42012/228/2010-IR (DU)]

SOM NATH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No.86/2011

Smt. Krishna

Nagar Nigam Karmchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624,

Sultanpuri, Delhi.

....Workman

VERSUS

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006.

....Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5195

AWARD

A part time safai karamchari joined Municipal

Corporation Primary Boys School, Katevda, on 25.04.1985.

She worked in the said school till June 1988. Thereafter,

she was engaged in Municipal Corporation Girls School,

Daryapur Kalan on 18.07.1988, where she worked upto

22.05.1993. Her services were also taken at Municipal

Corporation Boys Primary School, Azadpur, as well as

Municipal Corporation Primary School, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi. In pursuance of policy framed by Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (in short the Corporation), she was

offered job as daily wager and subsequently her services

were regularized with effect from 09.12.2004. She raised a

demand for regularization of service with effect from

25.04.1985, which demand was not conceded to by the

Corporation. Aggrieved by that Act, she approached the

Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh (herein after referred to as

the union) for redressal of her grievance. The union served

legal notice on the Corporation and thereafter raised a

demand before the Conciliation Officer. Since the

Corporation contested the claim, conciliation proceedings

ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report,

submitted by the conciliation Officer, the appropriate

government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication, vide order No.L-42012/228/2010-1R(DU), New

Delhi dated 04.04.2004, with following terms:

"Whether action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in denying the demand of Nagar

Nigam Karakmchari Sangh, for regularization of

services of Smt. Krishna, Safai Karmchari, with effect

from 25.04.1985 is legal and justified? What relief is

the workman entitled to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the safai karamchari,

namely, Smt. Krishna pleading therein that she was initially

appointed as a part time safai karamchari at Municipal

Corporation Primary Boys School, Katevda, Delhi, on

25.04.1985 (in short the School). She served the School

with sincerity and never gave any chance of complaint to

her superiors. Her services were regularized by the

Corporation with effect from 09.12.2004. She is entitled for

regularization of service from the date of her initially joining

the School. When she made a request for regularization of

her services with effect from 25.04.1985, she was given an

assurance that her demand would be considered. She was

rendering full time service with the School and as such is

entitled for regularization in service from 25.04.1985 the

date of initial joining of service. When her demand was not

conceded to, she served legal notice on the Corporation

through the union. Her demand was properly espoused by

the union. She claims that the Corporation may be directed

to regularize her services with effect from 25.04.1985 with

all consequential benefits.

3. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading

that being a part time sweeper, Smt. Krishna was not a

workman. No part time employee is entitled for regularization

of his service with the Corporation. However, Corporation

formed a policy for regularization of its part time sweepers.

In consonance with that policy, a part time sweeper is first

given job as daily wager and thereafter his services are

regularized. Services of the claimant were regularized vide

letter dated 09.12.2004. Since Smt. Krishna stood regularized

in the service of the Corporation, hence no dispute remains

to be adjudicated, pleads the Corporation.

4. The Corporation pleads that for went of espousal

dispute has not acquired character of an industrial dispute.

No demand was served on the Corporation and as such,

the dispute cannot be termed as an Industrial dispute.

Claimant is not entitled to get regularization in service of

the Corporation with effect from 25.04.1985, the date when

she was engaged as part time sweeper. Her claim is not

maintainable. It is liable to be dismissed being devoid of

merits, pleads the Corporation.

5. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(1)

Whether an industrial dispute is raised and

referred for adjudication?

(2)

As in terms of reference.

(3)

Relief.

6. Claimant abandoned the proceedings with effect

from 31.01.2012. Various adjournments were given but the

claimant opted not to adduce any evidence in the matter.

Since for the last more than 1½ years, claimant had not put

in her appearance, honce matter was proceeded under Rule

22 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (in short the

Rules). Evidence of the claimant was closed. As none came

forward on behalf of the Corporation, hence evidence of

the Corporation was also closed.

7. Neither the claimant nor authorized representatives

of the Corporation came forward to advance arguments. I

have perused the records carefully. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No.1

8. Claimant projects that initially she was appointed

as part time sweeper on 25.04.1995 in the School. She

served the Corporation with sincerity and honesty. Her

services were regularized on 09.12.2004. Corporation

projects in its written statement that being a part-time

employee the claimant was not a workman. Consequently,

it is expedient to record findings as to whether a part- time

employee is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). For

sake of convenience, definition of term 'workman' is

reproduced thus:

"2(s)Workman means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

5196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purposes

of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial

dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge

or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include

any such person :—

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950

(45 of 1950), or the Army Act 1950(46 or

1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an

officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii)

who is, employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity, or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws wages exceeding one thousand six

hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either

by the nature of the duties attached to the office

or by reason of the powers vested in him,

functions mainly of a managerial nature".

9. The first part of the definition gives statutory

meaning of the term workman. This part of the definition

determines a workman by reference to a person (including

an apprentice) employed in an "industry" to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines

what a "workman" means. The second part is designed to

include something more in what the term primarily denotes.

By this part of the definition, person (i) who have been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an

industrial dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, is discharge or

retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the

purposes of any proceedings under the Act in relation to

such industrial dispute, have been included in the definition

of "workman". This part gives extended connotation to the

expression "workman". The third part specifically excludes

the categories of persons specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of

this sub-section. The third part connotes that even if a

person satisfies the requirements of any of the first two

parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in the third

part, he shall be excluded from the definition of 'workman'.

Not only the persons who are actually employed in an

industry but also those who have been discharged,

dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a

consequence of an industrial dispute, and whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, would

fall within the ambit of the definition. In other words, the

second category of persons included in the definition would

fall in the ambit of the definition, only for the purpose of

any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial

dispute and for no other purposes. Therefore, date of

reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the

definition of workman on that day, the Tribunal would be

vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction

would not cease merely because subsequently the workman

ceases to be a workman.

10. For an employee in an industry to be a workman

under this definition, it is manifest that he must be employed

to do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work,

technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an

employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a

workman. The specification of the four types of work

obviously is intended to law down that an employee is to

become a workman only if he is employed to do work of

one of those types, while there may be employees who,

not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the

word 'workman', without having resort to the exceptions.

It cannot be held that every employee of an industry was to

be a workman except those mentioned in the four

exceptions as in that case these four classifications need

not have been mentioned in the definition and a workman

could have been defined as a person employed in an

industry except in cases where he was covered by one of

the exceptions.

11. In cases where an employee is employed to do

purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory

work or technical work or clerical work there would be no

difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the

appropriate classification. Frequently, however, an

employee is required to do more than one kind of work. In

such cases, it would be necessary to determine under which

classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out

whether he does not go out of the definition of 'workman'

under the exceptions. The principle is now well settled that

for this purnose, a workman must be held to be employed

to do that work which is the main work he is required to do

even though he may incidentally doing other type of work.

12. As projected above, definition of workman does

not make any difference between part time or full time

employees. The Apex Court in Birdichand Sharma [1961 (3)

SCR 161] and Silver Jubilee Tailoring House [1974 (3) SCC

498] was confronted with a proposition as to whether part

time employee answers definition of workman. It was

conclusively ruled therein that there was absolutely no

distinction between full time and part time employee and

that an employee who was working on part time basis would

not loose his status of workman, if he answers ingredients of

section 2(s) of the Act.

13. In General Manager Telecom, Nagpur (2001 Lab.I.C.

2127), the Bombay High court also reaffirmed the same

proposition. It was ruled therein that definition of workmen

as given in the Act does not make any distinction between

full time employee and part time employee. It does not lay

down that only a person employed for full time will be said to

be a workman and that the one who is employed for part time

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5197

should not be taken as workman. What is required is that the

person should be employed for hire to discharge work

manual, skilled or unskilled etc. in any industry. If this test is

fulfilled, part time employee can also be said to be a workman.

14. As projected by the claimant, she was engaged to

work as a sweeper, on part time basis. It is a matter of

common knowledge that sweeping job is unskilled manual

work. She was doing that job for hire or reward. Thus it is

crystal clear that the work performed by the claimant clothe

her with the status of a workman. The fact that she was a

part time employee would not make any difference. It is,

therefore, announced that the objection raised by the

Corporation is of no consequence.

15. The Corporation makes another attack pleading

that the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute

for want of espousal by the union. In her claim statement,

claimant presents that her demand was properly espoused

by the union. However, claimant has not come forward to

establish that fact by way of adducing cogent evidence.

Question for consideration would be as to whether the dispute

can be termed as an industrial dispute. For an answer to this

proposition, definition of the term 'industrial dispute' is to

be construed. Section 2(k) of the Act defines the term

'industrial dispute', which definition is extracted thus:

"2 (k) "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person;"

16. The definition of "industrial dispute" referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with —(i) employment or non

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition

of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate to an

"industry".

17. The definition of "industrial dispute" is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word "workman" it would seem to include

all "employers", all "employments" and all "workmen",

whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be.

Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute

between the employers and employers and workmen and

workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must

be an employee or a class of employees. The first point,

therefore, to be noted, perhaps self evident, is that the

phrase "employer and workmen", the plural may include

singular on either side or any permutation of singular or

plural, the masculine including the feminine. In order,

therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or

difference or a dispute is an "an industrial dispute' or not,

it must first be determined whether the workman concerned

or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of

clause(s) of section 2 of the Act. Here in the case, the

objection raised by the Corporation to the effect that the

claimant is not a workman, within the meaning of clause(s)

of section 2 of the Act, has been discarded in preceding

sections.

18. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

"industrial dispute" in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1) LLJ

500] and ruled that the expression "any person" in clause

(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such

limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the

two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real

dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in

the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose

employment, non employment, terms of employment or

conditions of labour, as case may be, the parties dispute

for a direct or substantial interest. Where workman raised a

dispute as against their employment, the person regarding

whose employment, non employer, terms of employment

or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised need not he

strictly speaking "workman" within the meaning of the Act,

but must be one in whose employment, non employment

terms of employment, or conditions of labour the workmen

as a class have a direct or substantial interest. The

observations made by the Apex Court are to be extracted

thus:

"We also agree with the expression "any person" is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances."

19. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt ) Ltd. [1958

(2) LLJ 660], the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workman and that the definition of the expression

"industrial dispute "is wide enough to cater a dispute raised

by the employer's workman with regard to non employment

of others, who may not be employed as workman at the

relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of

Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that in each

case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has

5198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is

whether at the date of reference, the dispute was taken up

as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer

against whom, the dispute is raised by an individual

workman or by an appreciable number of workmen. In order,

therefore, to convert an individual dispute into an industrial

dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up

by the union of employees of the establishment or by an

appreciable number of the employees of the establishment.

As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is

concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally

presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are

members of such unions generally have a continuity of

interest with an individual employee who is one of their

fellow workman. But difficulty arise when the cause of a

workman, in a particular establishment is sponsored by a

union which is not of the workmen of that establishment

but is one of which membership is open to workmen of

their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a

case a union which has only microscopic number of the

workmen as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute arising

between the workmen and the management. A

representative character of the union has to be gathered

from the strength of the actual number of co workers

sponsoring the dispute. The mere fact that a substantial

number of workmen of the establishment in which the

concerned workman was employee were also members of

the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be

shown that they were connected together and arrived at

an understanding by a resolution or by other means and

collectively submitted the dispute.

20. The expression "industrial disputes" has been

construed by the Apex on include individual disputes,

because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu opal Patvardhan

[1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court ruled as to what dispute

can be called as an industrial dispute. It was laid thereon

that (1) a dispute between the employer and a single

workman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2) it cannot per-

se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken up

by a trade union or a number of workmen. In Dharampal

Prem Chand [1965 (1) LLJ 668] it was commanded by the

Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot

become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either

by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial

number of workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian

Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132].

However in Western India Match Company [1970 (II) LLJ

256], the Apex Court referred the precedent in Dimakuchi

Tea Estate's case [1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a dispute

relating to "any person becomes a dispute where the person

in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment,

non employment, terms of employment or conditions of

labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or substantial

interest".

21. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an "industrial dispute", is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

"industrial dispute" concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the

workmen of the establishment as its members, it cannot be

inferred that the individual dispute has been converted

into an "industrial dispute". The Tribunal has therefore, to

consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman

actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman by

participating in the particular resolution of the Union. In

the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal, it

cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the

character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not

acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial

dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a

resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen.

What is necessary is that there should be some express or

collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of

the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman

as their own cause. Law to this effect was laid in

P.Somasundrameran [1970(1) LLJ 558].

22. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a

registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it

is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman's cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not "industrial dispute".

23. It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

"industrial dispute", while the workman may be represented

before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 36 of the Act

by a member of executive or office bearer of altogether

another union. The crux of the matter is that the dispute

should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2013@Hkkæ 23] 1935

5199

It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or

conducted only by a registered trade union. Even if a trade

union ceases to be registered trade union during the

continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would

not affect the maintainability of the order of reference. Law

to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon

India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For ascertaining as to

whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an

individual dispute, the test is whether on the date of the

reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the

union of the workmen of the employer against whom the

dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an

appreciable number of the workman. In other words, the

validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be

judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the

reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause

occurs. Reference can be made to a precedent in Western

India Match Co.Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ 256].

24. Sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act projects

that when industrial dispute is applied in the prescribed

manner to the appropriate Government, if satisfied that the

person applying represents majority of each party, it shall

make reference accordingly. Rule 3 of the rules projects as

to in what form the application under sub section (2) of

section 10 of the Act shall be made. Rule 4 provides as to

who shall sign the said application and its accompanying

statements. For sake of convenience provisions of the

aforesaid rules are reproduced thus:

"3. Application

An application under sub-section (2) of section 10

for the reference of an industrial dispute to a Board,

Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal

shall be made in Form A and shall be delivered

personally or forwarded by registered post to the

Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry

of Labour and Employment (in triplicate)] the Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, and the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), and the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

concerned. The application shall be accompanied

by a statement setting forth—

(a)

the parties to the dispute;

(b)

the specific matters in dispute;

(c)

the total number of workmen employed in the

undertaking affected;

(d)

an estimate of the number of workmen affected

or likely to be affected by the dispute; and

(e)

the efforts made by the parties themselves to

adjust the dispute.

4. Attestation of application

The application and the statement accompanying it

shall be signed:

(a)

in the case of an employer by the employer

himself, or when the employer is an

incorporated company or other body corporate,

by the agent, manager or other principal officer

of the Corporation;

(b)

in the case of workmen, either by the President

and Secretary of a trade union of the workmen,

or by five representatives of the workmen duly

authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the

workmen held for the purpose;

(c)

in the case of an individual workman, by the

workman himself or by any officer of the trade

union of which he is a member or by another

workman in the same establishment duly

authorised by him in this behalf:

Provided that such workman is not a member of a

different trade union."

25. Bare reading of the aforesaid rules makes it

apparent that the application in case of workmen shall be

signed either by the President and Secretary of the trade

union or by five representatives of the workmen duly

authorised in that behalf at a meeting of the workmen held

for the purpose. In case of dispute relating to dismissal,

discharge, retrenchment or otherwise termination of the

workman by his employer, the application may be signed

by the individual workmen himself or an officer of the trade

union or by another workman in the same establishment

duly authorised by him in this behalf. As facts project, it is

not a case where a dispute relating to dismissal, discharge,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of the service of the

claimant has been raised. Therefore, application in raising

the dispute was to be signed either by the President and

Secretary of the union or by five representatives of the

workmen duly authorised in that behalf at a meeting of the

workmen held for the purpose.

26. Now factual matrix is to be noted. As detailed

above, the claimant pleads that her demand was espoused

by the union, yet no evidence has been brought over the

record to establish that fact. When record is perused, it

came to light that no resolution or expression of collective

will of the union has been brought over the record. Copy

of legal demand notice dated 15.07.2009 has been placed

over the record. The said demand notice nowhere bring it

over the record that the members of the union took up the

cause of Smt. Krishna as their own. This document nowhere

states that the union expressed its collective will to take up

cause of the claimant for redressal of her grievance. This

legal notice does not specify standards of espousal of the

cause of the claimant so that it may reach pedestal of an

5200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2013/BHADRA 23, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industrial dispute. Except this legal notice, there is nothing

over the record to project that the cause of the claimant

was taken up by the members of the union as their own.

Thus, it is evident that there is complete lack of evidence

to the effect that cause of the claimant was espoused by

the union and it acquired status of an industrial dispute.

Resultantly, it is concluded that the claimant miserably failed

to establish that an industrial dispute was raised before

the authorities under the Act. It has also not been

established that the dispute, which was referred by the

appropriate Government for adjudication, reached the

pedestal of an industrial dispute. Resultantly, issue is

answered in favour of the Corporation and against the

claimant.

Issue No.2 & Relief

27. In view of the findings referred above, it is

announced that dispute raised by Smt. Krishna remained

an individual dispute and the appropriate Government was

not competent to refer it for adjudication. This Tribunal

cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute

under provisions of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal

refrains its hands from adjudication of the dispute. Claimant

is not entitled to any relief in view of the reasons referred

above. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 26.6.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1983.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ds iz'kkldh; fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks] ftuds U;wure

80 izfr'kr deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

,rn~nokjk vf/klwfpr djrh gS%

01- {ks=h; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe] jkaph

02- mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe] lwjr

03- dñjkñchñ vkn'kZ vLirky] jkenjckj ¼paMhx<+½

04- mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe] okjk.klh

05- izHkkxh; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe] ukfld

06- mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe]

vkSjaxkckn

07- mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe]

,j.kkdqye

08- jk"Vªh; izf'k{k.k vdkneh] deZpkjh jkT; chek

fuxe] ubZ fnYyh

09- mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe]

yqf/k;kuk A

[lañ bZ&11017@1@2006&jkñHkkñuhñ]

vfuy dqekj [kkph] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013

S.O. 1983.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the Central

Government hereby notifies following offices under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Labour &

Employment, at least 80% Staff whereof have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi:—

01.

Regional Office, Employees' State Insurance

Corporation, Ranchi

02.

Sub Regional Office, Employees' State

Insurance Corporation, Surat

03.

Employees' State Insurance Model Hospital,

Ramadarbar (Chandigarh)

04.

Sub Regional Office, Employees' State

Insurance Corporation, Varanasi

05.

Divisional Office, Employees' State Insurance

Corporation, Nasik

06.

Sub Regional Office, Employees' State

Insurance Corporation, Aurangabad

07.

Sub Regional Office, Employees' State

Insurance Corporation, Ernakulam

08.

National Training Academy, Employees' State

Insurance Corporation, New Delhi

09.

Sub Regional Office, Employees' State

Insurance Corporation, Ludhiyana.

[No. E-11017/1/2006-RBN]

A.K. KHACHI, Jt. Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.