4460 GI/2013

(6149)

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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2312-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼2½] fu;e 12

ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ vkSj fu;e 24 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds v/khu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkns'k djrs gSa fd dsUnzh; iz'kklfud

vf/kdj.k vkSj vihy vf/kdj.k esa lewg ^d*] lewg ^[k* vkSj lewg ^x* inksa dh ckcr 'kkfLr;ka vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, l{ke fu;qfDr

izkf/kdkjh vkSj vuq'kklu izkf/kdkjh os gksaxs tks blds lkFk mikc) vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

inksa dk o.kZu

fu;qfDr

'kkfLr;ka vf/kjksfir djus vkSj os

vihy izkf/kdkjh

la[;k

izkf/kdkjh

'kkfLr;ka tks ;g vf/kjksfir dj ldsa]

ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh ¼fu;e 11

dh en la[;k ds izfr funsZ'k½

izkf/kdkjh

'kkfLr;ka

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(i)

lHkh lewg

jk"Vªifr

¼d½ jk"Vªifr

¼d½ lHkh

¼d½ &&&&

^d*

¼[k½ v/;{k] dsUnzh;

¼[k½ (i) ls

¼[k½ jk"Vªifr

iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh

(iv)¹

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- 44]

ubZ fnYyh, vDrwcj 27—uoEcj 2] 2013] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 5—dk£rd 11] 1935

No. 44]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 27—NOVEMBER 2, 2013, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 5—KARTIKA 11, 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)

6150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii)

lewg ^[k*

v/;{k] dsUnzh;

¼d½ v/;{k] dsUnzh;

¼d½ lHkh

¼d½ jk"Vªifr

¼jktif=r½

iz'kklfud

iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh

¼[k½ (i) ls

¼[k½ v/;{k] dsUnzh;

vf/kdj.k

¼[k½ lac) U;k;ihB

(iv)¹

iz'kklfud

foHkkx dk iz/kku

vf/kdj.k

(iii)

lewg ^[k*

lac) U;k;ihB

lac) U;k;ihB

lHkh

v/;{k] dsanzh;

¼vjktif=r½

foHkkx dk iz/kku

foHkkx dk iz/kku

iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k

(iv)

lHkh lewg

iz/kku jftLVªkj

iz/kku jftLVªkj ;k

lHkh

dsUnzh; iz'kklfud

^x*

;k jftLVªkj ;k

jftLVªkj ;k la;qDr

vf/kdj.k] iz/kku

la;qDr jftLVªkj¹¹

jftLVªkj¹¹

U;k;ihB ds fy,

v/;{k] dsUnzh; iz'kklfud

vf/kdj.k ;k lac)

U;k;ihB foHkkx dk iz/kku

¹ dsUnzh; flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 11 esa mfYyf[kr NksVh 'kkfLr;kaA

¹¹ lewg ^x* inksa ds fy,] viuh&viuh U;k;ihB gsrq vuqeksfnr inksa esa ls fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vkSj vuq'kklu izkf/kdkjh T;s"Bre gksaxsA

fdlh Hkh ekeys esa vuq'kklu izkf/kdkjh fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ls xkS.k ugha gksxkA

[Qkñ lañ ,&12013@6@2011&,Vh]

,ñ v'kksyh pyk;] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013

S.O. 2312.—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of rule 9, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 and

sub-rule (1) of rule 24 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby

orders that the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority competent to impose penalties in respect of Group 'A',

Group 'B' and Group 'C' posts in the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Appellate Authority shall be as specified in the

Schedule annexed herewith.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Description

Appointing

Authority competent to impose

Appellate Authority

No.

of posts

Authority

penalties and penalties which

it may impose (with reference to

item number in rule 11)

Authority

Penalties

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(i)

All

President

(a) President

(a) All

(a) —

Group 'A'

(b) Chairman,

(b) (i) to (iv)*

(b) President

Central Administrative

Tribunal

(ii)

Group 'B'

Chairman,

(a) Chairman,

(a) All

(a) President

(Gazetted)

Central

Central

Administrative

Administrative

Tribunal

Tribunal

(b) Head of

(b) (i) to

(b) Chairman,

Department of the

(iv)*

Central

concerned Bench

Administrative

Tribunal

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6151

(iii)

Group 'B'

Head of

Head of

All

Chairman, Central

(Non-Gazetted)

Department

Department of the

Administrative

of the concerned

concerned

Tribunal

Bench

Bench

(iv)

All

Principal

Principal Registrar

All

Chairman, Central

Group 'C'

Registrar or

or

Administrative

Registrar or

Registrar or

Tribunal for

Joint Registrar**

Joint Registrar**

Central

Administrative

Tribunal, Principal

Bench or Head of

Department of the

concerned Bench

*Minor Penalties mentioned in rule 11 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

**For Group 'C' posts, the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority shall be the senior most among the sanctioned

post for the respective bench. In any case, the Disciplinary Authority shall not be subordinate to the Appointing Authority.

[F. No. A-12013/6/2011-AT]

A. ASHOLI CHALAI, Director

dks;yk ea=ky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2313-—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½

vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh]

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii), rkjh[k 1 ekpZ] 2013]

esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dkñvkñ

la[;kad 498¼v½] rkjh[k 1 ekpZ] 2013 ds izdk'ku ij] mDr

vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr

gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd egkunh

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lEcyiqj ¼vksfM'kk½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± dk vuqikyu

djus ds fy, jtkean gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/kjksfir

djuk mfpr le>sA

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn‹Ùk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa bl izdkj fufgr lHkh vf/kdkj rkjh[k 1 ekpZ]

2013 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,]

fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh daiuh esa

fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—

¼1½ ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk

vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh

ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ

djsxh(

¼2½ 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu

fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj mDr

vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k

esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs

vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa

ds fy, ;k muds laca/k esa vihy vkfn tSlh lHkh fof/kd

dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh

}kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(

¼3½ ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh]

,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl

izdkj mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#)

fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(

¼4½ ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds

fcuk mDr Hkwfe vkSj mDr Hkwfe esa ds vf/kdkjksa dks] fdlh

vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj

¼5½ ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds

fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,aA

[Qkñ lañ 43015@15@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013

S.O. 2313.—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

6152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Coal number S.O. 498(E), dated the 1st March, 2013, in the

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

the 1st March, 2013, issued under sub-section (1) of section

9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said

Act), the land in all rights described in the Schedule

appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to

as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central

Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section

(1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied

that the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Sambalpur (Odisha)

(hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is

willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby direct, that the said land in all rights so

vested shall, with effect from the 1st March, 2013, instead

of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest in

the Government company, subject to the following terms

and conditions, namely:—

(1)

the Government company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as

determined under the provisions of the said Act;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14

of the said Act, for the purpose of determining

the amounts payable to the Central Government

by the Government company under conditions

(1), and all expenditure incurred in connection with

any such Tribunal and persons appointed to

assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the

Government company and similarly, all expenditure

incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like

appeals, etc., for or in connection with the rights

in or the said land, so vested, shall also be borne

by the Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against any

other expenditure that may be necessary in

connection with any proceedings by or against

the Central Government or its officials, regarding

the rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to

transfer the said land and the rights in the said

land to any other person without the prior approval

of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such

direction and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular

areas of the said land, as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/15/2011-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2314-—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½

vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) rkjh[k 1 Qjojh] 2013

esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dkñvkñ

la[;kad 311¼v½] rkjh[k 31 tuojh] 2013 ij mDr vf/klwpuk

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ ls layXu vuqlwph

esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa ;k ,slh Hkwfe ij ds vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]

vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd ,ets,lts

dksy fyfeVsM [egkunh dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ftyk lEcyiqj

¼vksfM'kk½ dh ,d lgk;d daiuh] ftyk vaxqy] vksfM'kk ¼ftls

blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj

'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, jtkean gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl

fufeÙk vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>sA

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd mDr Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj

rkjh[k 1 Qjojh] 2013 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus

ds ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksZa ds v/khu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh

daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—

1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk

vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh

ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ

djsxh(

2- 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu

fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls mDr vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy,

fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh

daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr

Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds fy, ;k mlds laca/k esa

tksfd vihy vkfn lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr

mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(

3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh]

,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl

izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs

esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#)

fdUgh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6153

4- ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds

fcuk mDr Hkwfe dks vkSj fdlh vU; O;fDr ds vf/kdkjksa

dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj

5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds

fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,aA

[Qkñ lañ 43015@26@2008&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w& I ¼[kaM III)]

ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo

ORDER

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013

S.O. 2314.—Whereas, on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 311(E), dated the 31st January, 2013

published in the Gazetted of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii) dated the 1st February, 2013, issued under sub-

section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and the

rights in or over the land described in the schedule

appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to

as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central

Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section

(1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied

that the MJSJ Coal Limited [A subsidiary of Mahanadi

Coalfieds Limited, District Sambalpur (Odisha)], District

Angul, Odisha (hereinafter referred to as the Government

Company) is willing to comply with such terms and

conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose

in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the said land and the right

in or over the said land so vested shall, with effect from 1st

February, 2013 instead of continuing to so vest in the

Central Government, vest in the Government company,

subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:—

(1)

the Government company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like,

as determined under the provisions of the said

Act;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14

of the said Act, for the purpose of determining

the amounts payable to the Central Government

by the Government company under condition (1),

and all expenditure incrurred in connection with

any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist

the said tribunal shall be borne by the Government

company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in

respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc.,

for or in connection with the rights, in or over the

said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the

Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against any

other expenditure that may be necessary in

connection with any proceedings by or against

the Central Government or its officials, regarding

the rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to

transfer the said land and the right to any other

persons without the prior approval of the Central

Government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such

directions and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular

areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/26/2008-PRIW-I (Vol. III)]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2315-—dsUæh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd

blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk vfHkizkIr

fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj mi;qZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=

ds C;kSjs js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@07@2013] rkjh[k 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk fujh{k.k lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx½

njHkaxk gkml] jkaph&834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k

egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dqtw {ks=] ftyk jkex<+

¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k mik;qDr] ftyk jkex<+] >kj[k.M ;k

egkizca/kd ¼[kkst izHkkx½] vkjvkbZ&III] dsUæh; [kku ;kstuk ,oa

fMtkbu laLFkku] xksMokuk iSysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ¼>kj[k.M½ ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV]

dksydkrk&700 001 ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj

fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ls dks;ys

dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

6154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mi;qZDr of.kZr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr] bl

vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj

egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dqtw {ks=] ftyk jkex<+

¼>kj[k.M½ ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo

foHkkx] njHkaxk gkml] jkaph&834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; ls]—

(i) mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu

dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k laHkkO; gksus okyh fdlh

{kfr ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk

nkok dj ldsxk( ;k

(ii) mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ;k mDr vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs

izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k esa izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj

mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM

(i) ls (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks

minf'kZr djus ds fy, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh

ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA

vuqlwph

rksik iquxZBu ifj;kstuk

ftyk&jkex<+] >kj[k.M

lHkh vf/kdkj%

¼js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@07@2013] rkjh[k 18 tqykbZ] 2013½

Øe

xzke

Fkkuk

Fkkuk

ftyk

{ks= ,dM+ esa

fVIif.k;ka

lañ

lañ

1-

rksik

ekaMwq

126

jkex<+

170-97

Hkkx

2-

cuokj

ekaMw

127

jkex<+

30-98

Hkkx

3-

vksjyk

ekaMw

128

jkex<+

2-28

Hkkx

dqy & 204-33 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

;k 82-72 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjEHk gksrh gS xzke dqtw ds pkSFkk unh

ds e/; js[kk ¼IykWV la[;k 1069½ ls xqtjrh gS vkSj

fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq ^[k* xzke MVek vkSj rksik ds lfEefyr lhek

js[kk ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq ^x* IykWV la[;k 16] IykWV la[;k 28] 27 dh

lhek js[kk vkSj IykWV la[;k 29] 31] 69] 34 ls xqtjrh

gS ,oa IykWV la[;k 35] 34] 39 xzke vksjyk dh lhek

js[kk vkSj xzke rksik vkSj vksjyk dh lfEefyr js[kk ds

fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA

?k&³

js[kk fcUnq ^?k* xzke cuokj vkSj vksjyk ds lfEefyr

lhek js[kk ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^³* ij feyrh gSA

³&p&d

js[kk fcUnq ^³* pkSFkk unh ¼IykWV la[;k 306] 10½ xzke

cuokj vkSj ¼IykWV la[;k 1071] 1070] 202½ xzke

rksik dh e/; js[kk ls xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d*

ij feyrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 43015@08@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2013

S.O. 2315.—Whereas it appears to the Central

Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land

in the locality as described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas the plan bearing number Rev/07/2013,

dated the 18th July, 2013 containing details of the areas of

land described in the aforesaid Schedule may be inspected

at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and

Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi-834029

(Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central

Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand),

Deputy Commissioner, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand or at

the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division),

RI-III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute,

Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at

the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700 001.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development), Act, 1957 (20 ot 1957),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect

for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the

above mentioned Schedule may—

(i)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said

Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused

by any action taken under sub-section (3) of

section 4 of the said Act, or

(ii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of

section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting

license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section

(4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease

ceasing to have effect, and deliver all maps, charts

and other documents relating to the aforesaid land

to show the expenditure incurred in respect of

items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section

(1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the General Manager, Central

Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and

Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi-834029

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6155

(Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of

publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Topa Reorganisation Project

District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand

All Rights

(Plan bearing number REV/07/2013, dated the 18th July, 2013)

Sl.

Village

Thana

Thana

District

Area

Remarks

No.

number

in acres

1. Topa

Mandu

126

Ramgarh

170.97

Part

2. Banwar

Mandu

127

Ramgarh

30.98

Part

3. Oria

Mandu

128

Ramgarh

2.28

Part

Total: 204.33 acres (approximately)

or 82.72 hectares (approximately)

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' passes through centre

line of choutha nadi (plot no. 1069) in village Kuju

and meets at point 'B'.

B-C

Line passes through point 'B' common boundary

line of villages Datma and Topa meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line passes through point 'C' plot no. 16,

boundary line of plot no. 28, 27 and passes

through plot no. 29, 31, 69, 34 and boundary line

of plot no. 35, 34, 39 in village Oria and common

boundary line of village Topa and Oria and meets

at point 'D'.

D-E

Line passes through point 'D' common boundary

line of village Banwar and Orla and meets at point 'E'.

E-F-A

Line passes through point 'E' centre line of

choutha nadi (plot no. 306, 10) in village Banwar

and (plot no. 1071, 1070, 202) in village Topa and

meets at starting point 'A'.

[F. No. 43015/08/2013-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2316-—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 16@96½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@143@1992&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 16/96 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 04/10/2013.

[No. L-22012/143/1992-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/16/96

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Joint Secretary,

Coal India Pharmacist Association,

Branch Office, Qr. No. 10, Type-II,

Post Patharkhera, Distt. Betul (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

WCL, Patharkhera,

Distt. Betul

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10th day of September, 2013

1. As per letter dated 1-1-96 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/

143/92-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, WCL, Patharkhera in not denying to

place the existing incumbents who are working as

Pharmacist in Gr. "C" and Sr. Pharmacist in Gr. "B"

in higher grade w.e.f. 1-1-90 as per provisions of

T.I. No. 21, is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workmen are entitled to?" the word "not"

appears typing error.

2. After receiving references, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Coal India Pharmacists Association

submitted statement of claim. The case of Ist party

Association is that it is registered under Societies

Registration Act and claims to be recognized as Association

by Coal India and its subsidiary. That it files statement of

claim in representative capacity for para medical staff of

WCL. The rights and welfare of the staff in the matter of

6156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

implementation of revised care scheme dated 1-8-90. That

the existing incumbents working as Pharmacist Gr. C. and

Sr. Pharmacist Gr. B have to be suitably placed in higher

grade w.e.f. 1-1-1990. That the Cadre scheme had directed

that all those existing incumbents working in the post of

Dresser, OT Assistants should also be placed to the next

higher grade irrespective of availability of vacancies as per

the provisions contained in I.I. No. 21 of NCWA-IV. It is

further submitted that the recommendations of the Central

Wage Board for coal mining industry is accepted by Govt.

of India from 15-8-67. The Joint Bipartite Committee revised

cadre scheme time to time and lastly in meeting dated

11-12/5/90, the report was to be implemented w.e.f. 1-1-90.

It is submitted that as per I.I. No. 21, the medical staff

should have re-categorized placing in higher grade w.e.f.

1-2-90. Pharmacist Grade C & Sr. Pharmacist Gr. B. is suitably

placed in higher grade from said date as such benefit was

not given to Pharmacist Gr. C, B. Union had also submitted

grievance of the paramedical staff. It was not accepted.

Therefore Ist party Association prays for placing

Pharmacist Gr. C & Sr. Pharmacist Gr. B in higher grade from

1-1-90 with consequential benefit.

3. IInd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 8/1 to 8/5. The objection is raised that Ist party is not

registered Union under Trade Union Act. It is registered

under Societies Registration Act has no locustandi to file

statement of claim on behalf of para medical employees.

The reference is made mechanically without application of

mind is not tenable. If dispute does not survive, the

condition precedent to raise dispute is not existing. The

Pharmacist Association is not a recognized union. Other 5

major Unions are operating namely INTUC, AITUC, BMS,

CITU and HMS. Relief sought by association is not

shattered issue but it will lead to numerous settled issues

and cause unrest among other employees. IInd party further

submits that I.I. No. 21 does not provide for placing the

Pharmacist Gr. B & C to higher grades automatically. Cadre

Scheme provides for promotion giving the detailed scheme.

The mode of promotion is on recommendation of the DPC.

The claim of the applicant Association is based on wrong

interpretation. It is based on the note of the Cadre Scheme

I.I. No. 21. The employees are not fulfill the conditions for

promotions for higher grade. On such grounds, IInd party

prays for rejection of the claim.

4. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/14

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. It is

submitted that there is no restriction on functioning of

registered trade Union and registered Trade Union is

competent to raise issue and raise issues under Industrial

Dispute. As the reference does not suffer from any legal

irregularities, the contentions in Written Statement filed by

management are denied and Ist party Association is that

its claim does not relate to promotion rather it relates to

placement as per I.I. No. 21. Said benefit was allowed to

other category of employees in Coal Mines. Said benefit is

also given to para medical employees working in other

mines. Employees working in mine are discriminated. On

such grounds, Union prays for relief of placing Pharmacist

Gr. C & B in higher grades.

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 Ist party

In Negative

Association is competent

to raise and prosecute

present dispute.

(ii) Whether the action of the

management of General

In Negative

Manager, WCL, Patharkhera

in denying to place the existing

incumbents who are working

as Pharmacist in Gr. "C" and

Sr. Pharmacist in Gr. "B" in

higher grade w.e.f. 1-1-90 as

per provisions of T.I. No. 21, is legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the

Relief prayed

workman is entitled to?"

by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

6. Statement of claim is submitted by Ist party

Association of Pharmacist. IInd party management has

raised objection to its locus and competency to file and

prosecure the reference proceeding. The provisions of I.D.

Act does not provide that the Association registered under

Societies Registration Act could raise dispute and

prosecute the same. The evidence of Ist party union does

not disclose under which Act said Association has been

registered. No. document is produced by Ist party

Association about its registration. Registration of societies

may be for welfare activities of its member. Section 14 of

the Trade Union Act provides registration of Trade Union

under Societies Registration Act is void. The Ist party did

not point out any provisions of allowing it to prosecute

the claim of the pharmacist working in the Estt. Of IInd

party therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

7. Point No. 2 - Ist party Association filed affidavit of

evidence of Shri Ashok Upadhyay consistent with the

pleadings and statement of claim filed by association that

the claim of Ist party is for placement to the higher grade of

Pharmacist Gr. C & B as per I.I. No. 21 that the claim of the

Association is not for promotion. In his cross-examination,

witness of Ist party was unable to tell when other 8

pharmacist were appointed in Grade-C & B. The Cadre

Scheme is reproduced in affidavit of evidence filed by the

IInd party, copy is produced on record. Foot note provides

for placing pharmacist Grade-C & B to next grade. Text of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6157

I.I. No. 21 covers the matter of promotion and other details.

The promotion of Pharmacist Grade-C & B is passed on

recommendation of DPC. The claim of Ist party Association

for placing Pharmacist C & B to next higher grade from

1-1-90 irrespective of vacancy is not supported even by

the foot notes therefore the claim of Ist party Association

cannot be said legal. I therefore record my findings in Point

No. 2 in Negative.

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

(1)

The action of the management of General

Manager, WCL, Pathakhera in denying to place

the existing incumbents who are working as

Pharmacist in Gr. "C" and Sr. Pharmacist in Gr. "B"

in higher grade w.e.f. 1-1-90 as per provisions of

T.I. No. 21, is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2317-—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;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2003½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22011@52@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2013)

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

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Zonal Office, Food Corproation

of India, N&M Region, Food Corporation of India, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

04/10/2013.

[No. L-22011/52/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT GUWAHATI, ASSAM

PRESENT : Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LLB., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati,

Ref. Case No. 19 of 2013

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute

Between :

Sri Rithan Sutradhar, Dimapur,

Nagaland

-Vrs-

The Management of Zonal

Office, F.C.I. Ulubari, Guwahati

& 2 Others.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman,

:

None Appeared

For the Management

:

Mr. P.K. Roy,

Advocate,

Mr. S.K. Chakrabarty,

Advocate.

Date of Award: 03.09.2013

AWARD

1. This Industrial Dispute raised by the workman

Sri Rithan Sutradhar a casual worker against the

Management of Zonal Office, F.C.I., Guwahati which was

referred by the Ministry of Labour vide their letter No. L-

22011/52/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 18.02.2013 for adjudication.

The schedule of this Reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India through the (1) Executive

Director, (NEZ) (2) General Manager (N&M) (3)

Area Manager in terminating the service of

Shri Rithan Sutradhar, a casual worker on

23.04.2012, who rendered not less than 09 (Nine)

years continuous service and also qualified the

written test coducted for regular employee (but

disqualified in the final test), by not regularizing

the service or atleast allowing him to continue

the service as prior to 23-04-2012, is valid and

justified? If not, to what relief Shri Rithan Sutradhar

is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, this Reference case

was registered and notice was served upon the workman

as well as the Management. Accordingly the Management

appeared through their learned Advocate but the workman

did not turn up inspite of causing service of notice upon

him. While the workman submitted petition dated 28.05.2013

by Post. In the said petition the workman Rithan Sutradhar

stated that due to his domestic affair/problem and

unavoidable circumstances, he is willing to withdraw the

dispute raised by him and also prayed the Court for

disposing the Reference. Then the workman was again

issued notice for his personal appearance in order to prove

his petition dated 28.5.2013 but he, instead of appearing

the Court, sent another petition dated 9.8.2013 by Post

6158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

requesting the Court for withdrawing the proceeding

stating the reason that his father is old age and he is eldest

son in the family has to bear the responsibilities, and as per

discussion with his family members he has now opted to

his traditional family business in order to look after his

father. Prior to receipt of his letter dated 9.8.2013 another

notice was issued upon the workman on 14.8.13 fixing

30.8.2013, still the workman remain absent.

3. From the above discussion it is revealed that the

workman inspite of causing service of notice upon him on

repeated occasions failed to appear before this Court

defying the order of the Court, and to prove the contents

of his petitions along with the prayer for withdrawal of the

dispute. In his petition dated 28.5.2013 and 9.8.2013 the

workman repeatedly mentioned that due to his domestic

affair/problem and unavoidable circumstances as well as

his father's illness he has opted to join his traditional family

profession and he is not willing to proceed with the

reference.

4. Thus it is crystal clear that the workman is not

inclined to proceed with the Reference and is willing to

withdraw the Reference. As he did not appear before the

Court personally in order to prove the contents of his

petition, I find no reason to drag the proceeding in this

manner for an uncertain period since the Management is

appearing day to day and pressing for disposal of the

petitions submitted by the workman. Accordingly, I find

no other alternative but to consider the petitions filed by

the workman in his absence. Accordingly, the petitions

dated 28.5.2013 and 9.8.2013 are allowed and the workman

is allowed to withdraw the proceeding.

5. In the result, this Reference is disposed of on

withdrawal without granting any relief. Send the no relief

award to the Government as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

3rd day of September, 2013, at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2318-—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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@273@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2004)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/10/2013.

[No. L-22012/273/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 62/2004

Ref. No. L-22012/273/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 23.06.2004

BETWEEN

The State Secretary

Bharitya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh

5/6, Habibullah Estate

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri S.K. Kar)

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India

5/6, Habibullah Estate

Lucknow-226001

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22012/273/2003-IR(CM-II) dated

23.06.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bharitya

Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, 5/6, Habibullah Estate,

Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation

of India, 5/6, Habibullah Estate, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"KYA PRABANDHAN, BHARTIYA KHADYA

NIGAM, LUCKNOW DWARA SHRI S.K. KAR

KA VETAN NIRDHARAN US SE KANISHTH

KARMKAAR SHRI A.C. KOHLI TATHA ANYA

KE PARABAR NAHI KIYA JANA UCIT THATHA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6159

NYAYSANGAT HAI. YADI NAHI, TO

SAMBANDHIT KARMKAAR KIS ANUTOSH

KA HAQDAAR HAI?"

3. The case of the workmen's union, in brief, is that

the workman, S.K. Kar was appointed as messenger on

24.11.1969 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade

- III (Depot) on 23.2.74. It has been alleged by the workman's

union that the management promoted other 23 employees

vide order dated 26.04.72 and one of the beneficiary, who

was at serial No. 15 of the said list of 23 promotes, was

junior to the workman; accordingly, the management

ignored the workman and promoted an employee junior to

him. It is further submitted that on filing a writ petition

before Hon'ble High Court, the management granted him

national promotion to the post of Assistance Grade-III

(Depot) and Assistant Grade-II (Depot) against the panel

for year 1972 and 1984 respectively and his promotion was

regularized since 1972; and accordingly, he was entitled to

the same pay and privileges allowed to his juniors who

were promoted in 1972 viz, A.C. Kohli; but the management

denied the workman of the same. Accordingly, the workman

has prayed that the management be directed to fix his pay

at par with the junior viz. A.C. Kohli.

4. The management of the Food Corporation of India

has denied the claim of the workman's union by filing its

written statement; wherein it was submitted that the junior

official Shri A.C. Kohli is getting more pay in the lower post

of AG III (D) due his option of revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.1975.

It has submitted that the workman did not opt for revised

pay scale as such A.C. Kohli is not a sutiable junior for the

workman for claiming parity to step up his pay scale. The

management has specifically denied the statement showing

comparative pay scales in respect of the workman and A.C.

Kohli being wrong. Accordingly, the management has

prayed that the claim of the workman's union may be rejected

being devoid of merit.

5. The workman's union field rejoinder whereby he

has only reiterated its averments already made in the

statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in

support of their respective case. The workman's union has

examined workman whereas the management has examined

Shri Krishna Chandra Mishra, Dy. General Mangager

(Personnel) in support of their claim. The parties cross-

examined the witnesses of each other and forwarded oral

argument in support of their respective stand.

7. I have gone through entire evidence available on

record.

8. The workman's representative of the union has

submitted that the workman was appointed to the post of

messenger on 24.11.69, which is a class IV post and the

management promoted other employees, ignoring the

workman, to the post of Assistant Grade III, which is a

class III post vide order dated 24.04.72. It is further

submitted that the workman was given promotions, in the

year 1993, to the post of AGIII (D) against panel for the

year 1972 and further promotion of AG II (D) against the

panel for the year 1984, accordingly, the workman was

entitled for monetary benefits attached to the post. It is

also argued that the Shri A.C. Kohli, a junior, is getting

more pay just because of exercising his option to the revised

pay scale within the last date of option, which is 31.07.92.

Since the workman was promoted retrospectively in 1993,

therefore, he had not chance to exercise his option on

31.07.92.

9. Per contra, the management's representative has

argued that the difference in the pay of A.C. Kohli and that

of the workman is due to non-exercise of option by the

workman in respect of revised pay scales within the

prescribed time limit. It is also argued that A.C. Kohli is not

suitable junior for workman for the purpose of claming

parity to step up his pay scale because both are different

set of employees as one has given his option to the revised

pay scale whereas the other has not.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the parties and scanned entire evidence

available on record.

11. In the present case, admittedly, the workman, S.K.

Kar, has been appointed as messenger by the opposite

party management and been given promotion

retrospectively, on the post of AG-III (Depot) against panel

1972 and on the post of AG-II (Depot) against panel for the

year 1985. The said promotion order was issued in the year

1993. The management witness Shri Krishna Chandra

Mishra, Dy. General Manager (Personnel) in his

examination-in-chief has stated that Shri A.C. Kohli is

getting more pay due to his exercise of option to opt revised

pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.75 and the last date for exercising the

option was 31.07.92; but Shri S.K. Kar did not give any

option by 31.07.92, therefore, his pay culd not fixed at par

with Shri Kohli. The management witness in cross

examination has stated that on release of promotioin order

in 1993, Shri Kar was promoted to AG III (Depot) from 1972

and to the post of AG II (Depot) from 1985. It was further

stated that Shri Kar did not give any option for pay fixation;

however his pay was fixed at Rs. 290/- due to his promotion

as AG III (Depot).

12. The workman's union has come up with a case

that the workman, S.K. Kar was not given parity in pay

with respect to his junior, A.C. Kohli; but the management

has pleaded that the workman and the claimed junior are

two different set of workmen for claiming the parity in the

pay as the workmen did not give his option to draw his pay

in the revised pay scale whereas the other exercised his

option to draw his pay in the revised pay scale and

accordingly; his pay was fixed in the revised pay scale. In

the evidence of the parties it has come that the workman

was granted notional promotion to the Post of AG-III (D)

against panel 1972 and to the post of AG-II (D) against

6160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

panel 1985; but said promotion were granted to him in the

year 1993 retrospectively. It is also admitted that

consequent to promotion from retrospective date the

workman was provided consequential benefits from

retrospective date i.e. pay fixation against promotion post

etc.; but he was denied benefits of pay revision. As per

procedure when the revised pay scales are being introduced

every official has option either to continue to draw his pay

in the pre-revised scale or in the revised pay scale,

whichever is beneficial to him. While exercising his option

the official has to specially mention that he is intending to

draw his pay in the revised pay scale and he is also required

to mention the date from which he seeks the pay fixation

and accordingly, the pay fixation is done in the revised pay

scale. In case no option is being exercised by an official, it

is deemed that the official is not interested to draw his pay

in the revised pay scale and is willing to remain in the pre-

revised scale.

13. The workman in his evidence has stated, as under:

"Pay revision main pay fixation hetu jo kamiyan

thi jis ke karan senior ko junior se kam vetan mil

raha tha usko theek karne 1976 main va

tatpaschat 1992 main vikalp mange gae the,

maine nahi diye kyonki Court case chal raha

tha. Yadi has vikalp ke dete to hamara vetan

Avinash Kohli ke barabar ho jata."

The above statement of the workman goes to show

that he did not exercise his option for revised pay due to

his court case. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that

the workman was given notional promotion in the year

1993 after withdrawal of said court cases. Therefore, for

apt appreciation of merit it has to look whether the workman

was actually eligible for exercising the option on the cut off

date for exercising the option i.e. 31.07.92.

From the pleadings as well as evidence of the parties

it comes out that the workman was given notional

promotions in the year 1993 and had been released all

consequential benefits, except benefits of pay revision for

the want of option by the workman. But on the last date of

exercising the option i.e. on 31.07.1992, the workman was

not eligible for exercising his option being not promoted

and when the management promoted him in the year 1993

with retrospective effect and granted all related benefits

then it was for them to grant him benefits of pay revision

after taking option from him as the promotion was delayed

due the fault of the management and not due the workman.

Had the promotion been given granted in time then it might

have been the responsibility of the workman to exercise

the option within 31.07.1992; but in the present case the

workman had no chance to exercise his option on 31.07.1992

being ineligible as not promoted.

Therefore, it comes out that the management

promoted the workman in the year 1993 against the panel

for the year 1972 and 1985 retrospectively and extended all

related benefits consequent to the promotion, except

fixation in revised pay scale, which seems unreasonable

move on the part of management. When the management

promoted the workman from retrospective date and released

all consequential benefits, then it was for management to

get the option also from the workman regarding revised

pay structure from the retrospective date and fixed his pay

at par with other juniors retrospectively.

14. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case and discussions made herein above I am of

considered opinion that the action of the management of

the Food Corporation of India, Lucknow in not fixing the

pay of the workman at par with the junior was illegal and

unjustified. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated

against the management and the workman, S.K. Kar, is

entitled for pay fixation at par with his junior.

15. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

19th September, 2013.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2319-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch 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; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@165@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2005)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Broadcasting

Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 04/10/2013.

[No. L-42012/165/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 21/2005

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6161

Ref. No. L-42012/165/2004-IR(CM-II) dated: 29.06.2005

BETWEEN

Shri Ramesh Chandra Sanwal

S/o Shri C.D. Sanwal

Flat No. 566/28/07, Jaiprakash Nagar Lucknow.

AND

1. The Director

Broadcasting Corporation of India

Doordarshan Kendra

Lucknow

2. The Managing Director

Broadcasting Corporation of India

Directorate of Doordarshan

New Delhi.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/165/2004-IR(CM-II) dated:

29.06.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Shri Ramesh Chandra Sanwal,

S/o Shri C.D. Sanwal, Flat No. 566/28/07, Jaiprakash Nagar,

Lucknow and the Director, Broadcasting Corporation of

India, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow & the Managing

Director, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Directorate of

Doordarshan, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"KYA PRABANDHAN, DOORDARSHAN

KENDRA, LUCKNOW/DELHI DWARA SHRI

RAMESH CHANDRA SANWAL PUTRA SHRI C.D.

SANWAL, AKASMIK PRODUCTION SAHAYAK

KO SEEWA MAIN NIYAMITIKARAN N KAR KE

DINANK 31.07.2007 KO NAUKARI SE NIKAL

DIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA NAYAYSANGAT HAI?

YADI NAHI, TO KARMKAAR KIS ANUTOSH KO

PANE KA ADHIKAARI HAI?"

3. The case of the workmen, Ramesh Chandra Sanwal,

in brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party as

Casual Production Assistant in Group 'C' category on

31.12.1985 and thereafter he worked up to 30.07.2011 with

breaks. It has been submitted by the workman that there

had been a scheme for regularization of the casual

employees dated 09.06.1992, 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994; but

the management regularized other juniors viz. Umesh

Chandra Mishra, Mo. Nasir, Akesh Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh

Chandra Shukla, Muneen Ansari, Sishir Kumai Singh, Atul

Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi, Ankali Dixit

etc., ignoring him though he was eligible for the same,

which amounts to unfair labour practice. It has been alleged

by the workman that the management terminated his

services on 31.07.2001 without following the due procedure

as contained in Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action of

the management in denying him regularization be declared

illegal and he be regularized into the services.

4. The management of the Doordarshan has denied

the claim of the workman by filing its written statement;

wherein it was submitted that the workman has never been

appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no

appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore,

there is no question of termination or retrenchment of his

services w.e.f. 31.07.2001. It was submitted that the workman

was engaged for short spells to carryout casual nature of

work purely on the basis of actual requirement of programme

production for not more than 10 days in a month. It was

further submitted that the workman's case was considered

for regularization, in terms of regularization scheme dated

09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme dated 17.03.1994

and 05.07.1994, but he was found ineligible being over age

in terms of scheme dated 09.06.1992, therefore, he could

not be regularized. It is also submitted that all those who

were regularized by the management were regularized in

accordance with regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992

and 17.03.1994. Accordingly, the management of the

Doordarshan has prayed that he claim of the workman be

rejected being devoid of merit.

5. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has

stated that his date of birth is 12.11.1956 as per his

matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for

the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was

further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of

birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and

12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization, in

terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of Hon'ble

CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated

08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year.

Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in

the statement of claim.

6. The parties have adduced documentary as well as

oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The

workman has examined himself whereas the management

has examined Shri G.P. Pandey, Senior Administrative Officer

in support of their pleadings. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other.

The workman forwarded its oral arguments; but the

management refrained to argue its case in spite of ample

opportunities have been forwarded to them; accordingly,

the case was heard ex-parte against the management.

7. Heard the authorized representative of the

workman alone and gone through entire evidence available

on record.

6162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. The workman's representative has submitted that

the workman has been engaged as Casual Production

Assistant by the opposite party on 31.12.1985 and worked

as such till 30.07.2001 with intermittent breaks when his

services have been terminated by the opposite party

without assigning any rhyme or reason or any notice pay

or any notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention to the

provisions contained in the Section 25F of the I.D. Act. He

has also argued that when he was in service the

management devised a scheme for regularizing the casual

artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme

vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94, who worked as casual

artists with the opposite party as on 31.12.1991; but the

management did not regularize his services in spite of the

fact that he was fully eligible within the terms and

conditions of the said regularization schemes. The workman

has argued that the management did not extend the benefits

of the regularization to him taking excuse that he was over

age; but he was well under age when joined the opposite

party and also after giving him age relaxation as provided

in the regularization scheme his services would have

regularized. It is also argued that the management was

required to regularized the seniors first and for this the

management was ought to maintain seniority list/muster

roll as envisaged under the provisions contained in the

Section 25D of the Act; but the management not only

failed to comply with the provisions of the Section 25D

of the Act; but also regularized many juniors viz.

Shri Umesh Chandra Mihra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar

Kukreti, Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Mueen Ansari,

Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta,

Smt. Seem Kazmi and Anjali Dixit, ignoring the workman. In

this regard the workman has relied on the decision of Hon'ble

Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti

and others in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999.

9. Per contra, the management has submitted that

the workman was never appointed by it; rather he was

engaged by the management of perform the work of casual

nature as and when required, in short spells. His

engagement ended with the end of work/engagement

period; therefore, there is no question of terminating his

services at any point of time. It was further argued that the

case of the workman was considered for regularization,

within the terms and conditions provided under the

regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94;

but he could not qualify for the same, even after giving him

permissible age relaxation.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the parties and scanned entire evidence

available on record.

11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no

regular appointment of the workman and he was engaged

by the opposite party management on casual basis to work

as Casual Production Assistant for specified time period

on fixed payment. He was also given breaks and or his

engagement used to come to an end with the end of the

specified work/period.

It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the

parties that in pursuance to the directions of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide

their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. No. 563/86 between

Anil Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India, a scheme for

regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan was launched

vide Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992, which was further

modified vide office memorandum dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94.

All the Casual Artists who were employed on casual basis

on 31.12.1991, including those who were on the rolls of the

Doordarshan, though they may not be in services at that

time were eligible for consideration. In this regard the

workman's case is that the management regularized other

juniors, sparing him in spite of the fact that he fulfilled the

eligibility criteria of the scheme; and in rebuttal the

management witness has stated that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 20.03.2002 in Civil Appeal

No. 1122-1136 directed the management to decide the cases

of the casual artists in accordance with the regularization

scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme vide

dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The workman was a party in the

said SLP; and accordingly, his case was taken up by the

management in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92; but he was

not found eligible for regularization even after giving him

age relaxation of two years.

12. The workman has relied on order of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999

between Union of India & others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti

& others; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that

the questions raised in the appeals are squarely covered

by a decision of the Court in Director, Doordarshan

Kendera, Trivandrum and others Vs. S. Kuttan Pillai and

others (1998) 8 SCC 736. Hon'ble Apex Court in

Kuttan Pillai case, while deciding the case, where norms

for relaxation of age for the purpose of regularization and

for the purpose of recruitment were different in respect of

respondent Floor Assistants engaged on casual basis in

the Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum seeking

regularization, held that the relaxation in age could be

granted to the respondents only in accordance with the

scheme notified by the OM dated 09.06.1992 as modified

by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.2004.

13. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the

workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the

regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter

modified vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt

appreciation of the case of the workman regularization on

merit it would be necessary to quote the salient features of

the relevant regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94

and 05.07.94.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6163

"No. 1516/2(3)

Dated: 09.06.1992

Office Memorandum

Subject:

Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan.

Annexure to the above OM.

Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff

Artists in Doordarshan as per the judgment in OA

No. 563/86, dated 14.2.1992 in M/s Anil Kumar Mathur vs

Uol case.

1.

This scheme would be applicable to all those

Casual Artists who were employed on Casual

basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on

the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may

not be in services now will be eligible for

consideration. Those who are engaged on casual

basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for

consideration.

2.

Only those Casual who had been engaged for an

aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar

year) will be eligible for regularization. The broken

period in between the engagement and

disengagement will be ignored for the purpose.

The number of days is to be computed on the

basis of actual working days in the muster rolls or

attendance sheets or Q-sheets.

3.

Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for each

category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending upon

the length of service of Casual Artists. They will

be considered for regularization in the order of

their seniority against the available vacancies in

that particular Kendra. The seniority will be

determined from the date of their initial engagement

by the Kendra.

4.

The persons who are in the eligibility panel of

one Kendra will have no right for claiming

regularization in another Kendra as these are

generally Group 'C' posts and selection is made

Kendra-wise.

5.

The Casual Artists who are to be regularized

should possess the requisite educational

qualification and/or experience as stipulated in

the Recruitment Rules of other administrative

instructions (in the absence of Recruitment Rules)

existing for the post when the casual worker was

initially engaged.

6.

The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent

of service rendered by the Casual Artists at the

time of regularization. A minimum of 120 days

service in the aggregate, in one year, shall be

treated as one year's service rendered for this

purpose. The service rendered for less than 120

days in a year will not qualify for age relaxation.

7.

The regularization of Casual Artists would be from

prospective date and the Casual Artists on the

eligibility panel who fail to qualify for

regularization in accordance with the recruitment

rules and instructions issued there under for the

post, shall be removed from the panel.

8.

If a Casual Artists on an eligibility panel commits

a misconduct and the same is...............................

would not be eligible for regularization.

9.

Till all the Casual Artists ............................. no panel

of eligible Casual Artists."

"No. 2(J)/-S.1

Dated: 17.03.1994

Office Memorandum

Subject:

Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan.

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to

DG: D O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above

subject, with which a copy of the scheme for regularization

of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was circulated. According

to condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number of days

for the purpose of regularization is to be computed on the

basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or

Attendance Sheets or 'Q' sheets.

2.

It has been brought to the notice of this

Directorate that although these Casual Staff

Artists were engaged for 10 days or have been

working on 2-3 assignments in a month on a

consolidated amount of Rs. 400-500 per

assignment, but in actual practice, they have been

working throughout the month. This aspect has

been examined by the Directorate in consultation

with Ministry of I&B and procedure to be followed

for arriving at the number of days of casual

working will be as under.

3.

The number of days for the purpose of

regularization will be computed on the basis of

actual wages given to the prevalent in the State

during the relevant time of working. For example,

if a Casual Staff Artist has been paid an aggregate

sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working

for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and

the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the

relevant time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be

deemed to have worked for 30 days in a month

(i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject to the

condition that the days so computed would not

exceed 25 days in a month.

6164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4.

It has also been noticed that certain staff artists

were engaged initially when they were over-age

according to the Recruitment Rules. All such

cases, with the number of days they worked on

casual basis according to the formula laid down

in Para 3, should be referred to the Directorate for

taking a decision on merit."

"No. 4(1)/94-S.I.

Dated: 05.07.94

Office Memorandum

Subject: Regularization of Casual Artists as per revised

Scheme dtd. 13.-.94

The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras is invited

to this Directorate's Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated 17.03.1994,

copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various Doordarshan

Kendras have sought certain clarifications on a number of

points is regard to Revised Scheme, these points are

clarified as under :—

(a)

Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility

list of Casual Artist in accordance with Para 3 of

the Revised Scheme and regularize them against

available vacancies in their respective category

on the basis of seniority.

(b)

....................................

(c)

The crucial date for the purpose of calculation of

age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92

and there is no change in it.

(d)

For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of

days engagement should be taken into account

up to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any,

beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be

counted for the purpose of age relaxation.

(e)

Casual Artists who have worked for 120 days in

any calendar year as per revised scheme too up

to the period ending on 31st December, 1991

should be considered for regularization. The

casuals who have completed 120 days after

31.12.1991 are not currently counted for

regularization.

(f)

............................

(g)

............................

(h)

The rates of wages prevalent by the State

Government from time to time by way of minimum

wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls, are to

be taken the calculation of number of days of

Casual Artists at that Kendra. The total amount

paid to an individual Casual Artist during the

month are to be divided by per day rate of payment

of minimum wage for calculation of number of

days in a month. The classification in different

scales of pay/fee in Group 'C' and 'D' etc. is not

required. The maximum number of days so

calculated should be restricted to 25 days in a

month.

(i)

............................

(j)

Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989

are not prescribed and available, the computation

of number of days should be done by the following

formula :—

Total amount paid during the month/30 = Amount for one

day.

The maximum number of days so arrived at should be

restricted to 25 days in a month only."

A bare perusal of the above office memorandums

shows that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated

09.06.92 was available to those casual artists who were

employed on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and they should

have engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a

calendar year. Also, the casual artist should have been in

possession of requisite education qualification and

experience. Also, they should have been within the upper

age limit, which was relaxable to the extent of services

rendered by the casual Artist at the time of relaxation i.e. on

31.12.1991. However, the modifications to the scheme dated

09.06.92 were issued vide scheme dated 17.03.94 and

05.07.1994; but the crucial date for eligibility and for the

purpose of calculation of age and age relaxation etc.

remained same as that in the scheme dated 09.06.92.

14. Now, entering into the merit of the case, the matter

has to be examined as to whether the workman was eligible

for regularization within the terms and conditions of the

above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of the

workman is that he was engaged on 31.12.1985 as Casual

Production Assistant, when he was well within the age as

prescribed in the Rules. He has filed photocopy of his

matriculation certificate wherein his dated of birth is

mentioned as 12.11.1956. He has also filed photocopy of

advertisement seeking application for the post of

Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age limit for

the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years. Therefore, it

comes out that when the workman was engaged initially he

was well within the prescribed age for the post; but when

the scheme for regularization dated 09.06.92 came into force

he had become over age on the crucial date of eligibility i.e.

on 31.12.91 when he was approximately of 35 years

1½ months age. Moreover, it is the case of the management

that the case of the workman was considered within the

terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but

he could not be extended benefit of regularization being

over-age. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here

that as per age relaxation clause provided in the scheme, a

casual artist was required to be extended age relaxation

with respect to the upper age-limit, to the extent of services

rendered by him at the time of regularization. As per scheme,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6165

for upper age relaxation, a minimum of 120 days service in

the aggregate, in one year, was required to be treated as

one year's service rendered for this purpose. Moreover,

the service rendered for less than 120 days in a year were

not going to be qualified for age relaxation. The workman

has alleged that the management did not give any

weightage for the services rendered by him for considering

age relaxation, which resulted into his disqualification for

the regularization. In this respect, the management of the

Doordarshan in its evidence has stated that the workman

was provided age relaxation of two years even then he

could not qualify the terms of regularization being

over age.

15. The workman in his pleadings, pleaded that he

was within the age limit when initially engaged; but got

over age during his engagement. He has further pleaded

that had he been given age relaxation, he would have come

within the ambit of the regularization scheme. This pleading

of the workman has been denied by the management

through pleadings as well as in its evidence with specific

statement that the workman was given two years age

relaxation even then he failed to qualify for regularization

as per regularization schemes. As per settled law, the initial

burden was on the workman to prove before this Tribunal

that he was eligible for age relaxation and for this he was

required to prove, through cogent evidence, that he actually

worked for 120 days in aggregate in each calender year

from 1985 to 1991 for seeking age relaxation in order to

come within the purview of terms of regularization scheme;

but he failed to do so. Admittedly, the workman worked

with the management, intermittently; but the workman has

neither given any detail for his working nor any reliable

proof for payments made to him during different calender

years of engagement as contended by him. For calculating

120 days working a formula has been enumerated in the

scheme, which is based on the monthly payment made to a

casual artist; but the workman has not come forward either

with the working days detail or monthly payment details

nor has tried to summon the relevant documents from the

management i.e. engagement letters, payment slips or

vouchers or attendance sheets or 'Q' Sheets as envisaged

in the scheme itself.

However, the workman has filed year wise statement;

paper No. 7/48 showing amount paid to him during his

engagement, which is as under:

Paid Amount in a

Remarks

Year

year

(1)

(2)

(3)

31.12.1985

Rs. 44.75

No Comments

1986

Rs. 4275.50

200 days

admitted by the

employer

1987

Rs. 3000.00

125 days

admitted by the

employer

1995

Rs. 3000.00

No. remarks by

the employer

1996

Rs. 22,250.00

"

1997

Rs. 16,000.00

"

1998

Rs. 18,300.00

"

1999

Rs. 30,000.00

"

2000

Rs. 38,200.00

"

30/7/2001

RS. 25,900.00

"

From perusal of above yearly payment details, it

reveals that the workman actually worked up to 30.07.2001

with the opposite party; but as per terms of the schemes

for regularization the working up to 31.12.1991 was required

to be considered; either for considering the eligibility or

for age relaxation. It was specifically mentioned in the OM

dated 09.06.1992 that the “scheme would be applicable to

all those Casual Artists who were employed on Casual

basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls

of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services

now will be eligible for consideration. Those who were

engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible

for consideration. Further, clause (e) of the OM dated

05.07.1994 provides that the Casual Artists who have

worked for 120 days in any calender year as per revised

scheme too up to the period ending on 31st December,

1991 only should be considered for regularization. The

casuals who have completed 120 days after 31.12.1991 are

not currently counted for regularization. Accordingly, it

comes out that working/engagement up to 31.12.1991 was

relevant for the purposes of consideration within the terms

of regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992, 17.03.1994 and

05.07.1994. Hence, the argument of the authorized

representative of the workman that the workman worked

up to 30.07.2001 and his working up to 2001 should be

considered for regularization has no merit. Here from the

document/payment detail, filed by the workman himself

though not admitted by the management, if for the

argument's sake if it is taken to be true even then the

workman's working only for two years i.e. 1986 and 1987

was required to be taken into account and since the

workman did not work with the management after 1987 and

up to 1991 therefore, he was not entitled for any age

relaxation for working during 1987 to 1991. This again goes

to show that the management of the Doordarshan rightly

extended age relaxation of two years to the workman.

Thus, the workman utterly failed to establish that he

actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in a calender

year to give him benefit of age relaxation required by him;

and in the absence of any proof it is hard to carve any

finding that the workman actually worked with the

management and he was eligible for regularization after

giving age relaxation of approximately more than five years.

16. As regard termination of the workman on

31.07.2001, the management has pleaded that the workman

(1)

(2)

(3)

6166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was never appointed by the opposite party; rather he was

engaged for short spells on casual basis as and when required

by it. This fact is admitted by the workman in pleadings as

well as in his evidence. Moreover, the workman himself has

filed offer letters which goes to show that he had been

engaged by the management for specified time, therefore,

the end of engagement on completion of task or engagement

period does not amounts to termination of services.

17. The workman pleaded that the management has

terminated his services without complying with the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. In this regard the

burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked

for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged

termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid

down in 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar

Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai; wherein

Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the

workman failed to prove that he had been in employment

with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly,

he is not entitled to the protection, in compliance of Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before

the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding

the date of termination to decide the question of the

continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court

has observed as under:

"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of

salary or wages for 240 days or record of his

appointment of engagement for that year to

show that he has worked with the employer for

240 days to get the benefit under section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now well settled

that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to

show that he in fact worked for 240 days in a

year preceding his termination."

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in

order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory

provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act, it is

necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect

that he was actually in employment of the opposite party

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he

was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there

is pleading that provisions of Section 25-F the Act, have

not been complied with, there is no piece of evidence to

show that the workman worked for 240 days with the

management of Doordarshan in twelve calender months

preceding the date of termination. It is pertinent to mention

here that the workman has failed to substantiate this fact

that the workman worked for 240 days in a year preceding

the date of termination.

18. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case and the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, I am of considered opinion that the workman's claim

for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan not

sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the ambit of

regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified

schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994. Accordingly, the

reference is adjudicated against the workman, Ramesh

Chandra Sanwal; as such he is not entitled for any relief.

19. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

17th September, 2013.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2320-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLV~u dksyQhYM

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 170@2000½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@208@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/2000) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of WCL, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 04/10/2013.

[No. L-22012/208/1996-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/170/2000

Date: 16.09.2013.

Party No. 1

:

The Sub Area Manager,

New Majri Open cast, Sub Area of WCL,

PO: Shivajinagar, Distt. Chandrapur

(MS).

Party No. 2

:

Shri Gurudas Vikaram Pazare,

C/o. Shri Chandramani Vikram Pazare,

Near Nehru Ward, Ganeshpur Road,

Wani, At, PO & The. Wani,

Distt. Yeotmal. (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 16th September, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6167

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of New Majri Open Cast Sub Area of WCL,

and their workman, Shri G.V. Pazare, to CGIT-Cum-Labour

Court, Bombay for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/

208/96-IR (C-II) Dated 27.06.1997/15.07.1997, with the

following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of New

Majri Open Cast Sub Area of WCL in dismissing

Shri G.V. Pazare, Ex. Fitter Helper from service w.e.f.

01.09.1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled and from what date?"

Subsequently, the case was transferred to this

Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri G.V. Pazare,

("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and

the management of the Western Coal Fields Limited, ("Party

No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that charge sheet dated 14/15.04.1992

was served on him on the allegation that on 14.04.1992 at

11 A.M., he was in a state of intoxication and he entered in

to the office of the Supdt. Engineer, Shri A.K. Dey and

misbehaved with him and abused him and in the charge

sheet, nothing was mentioned as to what type of abuses

were given to Shri Dey and Mr. Hussain, who was involved

in the matter was appointed as the enquiry officer and he

was not impartial and the entire enquiry conducted against

him is unfair and has no merit and neither the copy of the

enquiry report nor the second show cause notice was given

to him, before passing of the order of dismissal and the

findings of the enquiry officer are preverse, as the same are

against the evidence on the record of the enquiry and the

order of punishment is bad in law and is liable to be set

aside and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

3. The party no. 1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman was working as a fitter helper

at New Majri Open cast mine and on 05.03.1992, while he

was working in the general shift, he left his place of work

without permission and at about 10.30 AM, he entered in

to the office of the Suptd. Engineer, Shri A.K. Dey and

misbehaved with him and abused him and at that time, he

was in a drunken state and as his above acts were in

contravention of the provisions of the standing order of

the colliery, he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated

5/6.03.1992 and he was asked to explain his conduct and

the workman submitted his written explanation vide his

letter dated 08.03.1992, denying the charges and as the

explanation of the workman was found not satisfactory,

the departmental enquiry was initiated against him and

Shri A.F. Hussain, Senior Executive Engineer (E & M) was

appointed as the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry against

him and the workman did not raise any objection to the

appointment of Shri A.F. Hussain as the enquiry officer

and the workman appeared in the enquiry on 28.04.1992

without any co-worker, though he was specifically advised

in the letters issued to him by the enquiry officer to come

with his co-worker and being asked by the Enquiry Officer

as to whether he would like to take the assistance of a co-

worker, the workman replied that he would do so on the

next date and as the workman did not ask for any

adjournment for the said purpose, the enquiry proceeded

and the workman pleaded not guilty to the charges, when

the same was read over and explained to him and thereafter,

withnesses for the management were examined in presence

of the workman and the workman was asked to cross-

examine the witnesses, but he declined to do so and as the

enquiry could not be completed on 28.04.1992, the same

was adjourned to 09.06.1992 and on 09.06.1992 though the

workman was present with his co-worker the management

representative was absent, so the case was adjourned to

10.06.1992 and as on 10.06.1992, the co-worker of the

workman was absent, the enquiry was adjourned to

11.06.1992 and on 11.06.1992, the management

representative closed the evidence without examination of

any further witness and then the workman examined himself

as a witness in his defence and he was cross-examined by

the representative for the management and as the workman

did not want to produce any other witness in his defence,

the enquiry was closed on 11.06.1992 and the enquiry officer

submitted his report to the Suptd. of Mines/Manager, New

Majri Open Cast Mine, holding the charges to have been

proved against the workman and the enquriy officer, while

writing his report and finding, analyzed the evidence

adduced before him in detail and submitted his objective

report and his report was based entirely on the records of

the enquiry and on no extraneous considerations and the

disciplinary authority was in agreement with the findings

of the enquiry officer, after going through the report and

proceedings of the enquiry and considering the seriousness

of the misconduct, the workman was dismissed from the

service by order dated 01.09.1992, w.e.f. 01.09.1992, after

obtaining approval from the competent authority and the

dismissal of the workman is perfectly justified and lawful

and the punishment was imposed after a fair and proper

enquiry in which the charges levelled against him were

duly proved and as the punishment is proportionate to the

charges, the same does not call for any interference.

It is also pleaded by party no. 1 that another charge

sheet dated 14/15.04.1992 was issued against the workman,

but further action in the said charge sheet had to be kept in

abeyance, in view of his dismissal on the charges levelled

against him vide charge sheet dated 5/6.03.1992 and the

workman totally misconceived the facts and the

6168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submissions made in respect of the same were totally

irrelevant and the enquiry officer, who conducted the

enquiry against the workman was not involved in the

incident and it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court

that the non-supply of the enquiry report to the workman

will not vitiate the enquiry proceeding/action of the

management, unless it is submitted and proved by the

workman that due to the non-supply of the enquiry report

a prejudice was caused to his case and the workman has

not pleaded as to whether any prejudice was caused and if

so, as to how and there is no merit in the case and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that the fairness or

otherwise of the departmental enquiry conducted against

the workman was taken for consideration as a preliminary

issue and by order dated 03.03.2007, the enquiry conducted

against the workman was held to be improper and illegal

and as the party no. 1 had prayed to allow it to lead evidence

to prove the charges against the workman, incase of

answering of the preliminary issue in favour of the workman

in the written statement itself, the party No. 1 was allowed

to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman

before this Tribunal.

5. In order to prove the charges, party no. 1 examined

two witnesses, namely, Shri Ajay Kumar Dey, the then

Suptd. Engineer, who was alleged to be misbehaved and

abused by the workman in a state of intoxication and one

Shri Wamanrao S. Gadling, who was the head security guard

on the alleged date of occurrence. The workman has

examined himself as a witness, besides examining

Shri Narendra G. Ginnalwar as the other witness, by way

of rebuttal evidence.

6. Before delving into the merit of the matters, I think

it necessary to mention about the charges levelled against

the workman under the charge sheet dated 05/06.03.1992.

The charges levelled against the workman are:-

18 (1) (e)-

Drunkenness, fighting or riotous, disorderly

or indecent behaviour at the premises of

the mine.

18 (1) (p)-

Leaving work without permission or

sufficient reason.

18 (1) (r)-

Threatening, abusing or assaulting any

superior or co-worker.

7. So far the evidence adduced by party no. 1 to

prove the charges against the workman is concerned,

Shri Ajay Kumar Dey has stated that he was working as

Suptd. Engineer (E&M) and on 05.03.1992, while he was

working in his office in the E&M workshop of New Majri

colliery, at about 10 AM, he heard some shouting and use

of abusive language outside the office and immediately

thereafter, the workman who was on duty at that time

entered into his office and started shouting at him and

abused him in very filthy language saying, "SALA TUM

KO DEKH LUNGA- TUM HAMKO FRIDAY KO DUTY

NAHI DETA HAI" and the workman also threatened to kill

him, if he got him outside and from his physical appearance,

he was looking drunk and from his mouth foul smell of

drinking alcohol was also coming and while the workman

was still in his office, the Sr. Security Inspector, Shri D.T.

Borkar and the Security guard, Shri Gadling, who were on

duty at the workshop came into his office and he asked

shri Borkar to take the workman to colliery hospital for his

medical examination, as he appeared to be in a drunken

state, but at that time, Shri Pazare, the workman ran away

from his office and he immediately went to the office of the

Suptd. of Mines/Manager and reported the incident to him

and after reporting the matter, he came back to his office

and the workman did not come back to the workshop on

that day till 5 PM, the end of that shift.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that for the incident dated 05.03.1992, he did not lodge any

report in the police station. On perusal of the evidence of

Shri Ajay Kumar Dey, it is found that though this witness

has been cross-examined at length, nothing of importance

has been brought out in his cross-examination to disbelieve

his testimony.

8. Shri Wamanrao S. Gadling, who was working as

the head security guard on the date of occurrence is the

other witness examined by party no. 1 to prove the charges

levelled against the workman. Shri Gadling in his evidence

on affidavit has stated that from 1990 to 1993, he was

working as Head Security Guard at Majri OC and on

05.03.1992, while he was on duty, at about 10.30 AM, the

workman, Shri G.V. Pazare came shouting at the top of his

voice and abusing Shri A.K. Dey, the Suptd. Engineer

(E&M) in filthy language and the workman entered into

the office of Shri Dey and went on abusing Shri Dey in

filthy language and also threatened him to kill and he and

Shri Borkar, the security inspector entered into the office

of Shri Dey, as the workman was in a violent mood and

when Shri Dey asked Shri Borkar to take the workman to

colliery hospital for medical checkup as he appeared to be

drunk, the workman fled away from the office of Shri Dey

and left the workshop.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that

the workman, Pazare entered the workshop by abusing

from the gate of the workshop, which was situated about

10 to 15 feet away from the workshop and he did not try to

catch hold up the workman and he also did not ask the

workman to go away from the workshop.

9. So far the rebuttal evidence is concerned, the

workman, who has examined himself as a witness has stated

that he did not commit any misconduct as alleged in the

charge sheet dated 05/06.03.1992 and on 05.03.1992 he

reported for duty and when he was sitting in the canteen

and taking tea, he got information that his wife fell down

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6169

and it was necessary to take her to the hospital, so he went

to the workshop and informed Shri Dey that he has to take

his wife to the hospital and asked to give him off, but Shri

Dey scolded him and he remained silent and after striking

off his attendance, he left for his house.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted

that on 05.03.1992, his duty was in the electrical/mechanical

workshop of Marji Colliery in the general shift and the

employees working in the workshop use to mark their

attendance in the Time office, which is situated half kilometer

away from the workshop and the canteen is situated near

the Time office. Contradicting his own evidence, the

workman in his cross-examination has started that on

05.03.1992 after making his attendance, he did not go to the

canteen and his wife was ill on 05.03.1992 and at about 8.30

AM on 05.03.1992, his nephew came to the workshop and

informed him about the illness of his wife and after getting

the information, he informed Shri Dey, the Engineer, who

was present in the workshop about the illness of his wife

and he did not go to the Time office and Mr. Dey did not

reply anything and thereafter, he informed the Fitter,

Mr. Akre about the illness of his wife and about giving

such information to Mr. Dey and left the workshop. He has

further admitted that neither in his statement of claim nor in his

affidavit, he has mentioned that on 05.03.1992 at 8.30 AM,

when he was in the workshop, his nephew came to the

workshop and informed him about the illness of his wife

and Mr. Dey did not abuse him.

10. The other witness examined by the workman is

Shri Narendra Ganpatrao Ginnalwar. In his examination-in-

chief on affidavit, this witness has stated that on 05.03.1992

he was on duty in the general shift and he was working

with Shri Akre and Shri Sanjay and they were repairing an

ambulance and the workman was helping them and at about

10/10.30 AM, the workman was informed about some

relative to have come to meet him and the workman went

outside the workshop and after some time, the workman

went to the cabin of Shri Dey and at about 10.50 AM, he

came to them and informed them that his relative informed

him about the illness of his wife and the necessity of his

going to his house immediately and that he had informed

Shri Dey about the illness of his wife and to take her

immediately to the hospital and that he had requsted

Shri Dey to give him off and then the workman went for his

house.

In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that

on 05.03.1992, nobody came to inform the workman about

the illness of his wife, in his presence and he did not go to

the cabin of Shri Dey with the workman and he does not

know as to what happened in the cabin of Shri Dey and he

did not ascertain from Shri Dey, if Shri Dey had allowed

leave to the workman or not.

11. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the party No. 1 that though it has

been held by the Tribunal that due to non-supply of the

enquiry report and the second show cause notice to the

workman, he was deprived of proper and reasonable

opportunity to put up his defence and therefore, the

departmental enquiry is not legal and proper and the same

is vitiated, it has not been held that the departmental

proceedings is violative of the principles of natural justice

and therefore, there is justification for taking into

consideration the departmental proceedings on record. It

was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party

No.1 that to prove the charges against the workman, two

witnesses have been examined by the party No. 1 and the

evidence of both the witnesses is consistent and

trustworthy and from their evidence, it is established

beyond doubt that on 05.03.1999 at about 10 AM, the

workman entered into the cabin of Shri Dey in a State of

intoxication and abused him in filthy language and

threatened him to kill and thereafter, he left the workshop,

even though he was on duty in the general shift and the

evidence of the workman and the other witnesses examined

by him is quite inconsistent and the same is not only

contradictory to each other but also, self contradictory

and the same is shaky and not at all trustworthy and the

party No. 1 has been able to prove the charges levelled

against the workman and the misconduct proved against

the workman is so serious that any punishment short of

dismissal would be too light and would have adverse effect

on the overall discipline of the mine.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2003 LAB IC-250 (Akaram Vs. M/s. Dalal Project Services

Pvt. Ltd.), 1996 LAB IC-462 (B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of

India), 2005 LAB IC-854 (Bharat Forge Vs. Uttam Manohar)

and 2005 LLR-360 (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs. N.B.

Naravade).

12. Per contra, it was argued by the learned advocate

for the workman that in this case, it was held by this

Tribunal that the departmental enquiry conducted against

the workman not to be proper and legal and the same is

vitiated and the party No. 1 was directed to prove the

charges against the workman by leading evidence before

this Tribunal and the party No. 1 has only examined two

witnesses, namely, Shri Dey and Shri Gadling and no

documentary evidence has been produced by party No. 1

and the oral evidence of the two witnesses examined by

the party No. 1 cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the

charges and moreover, their evidence is not trust worthy

and it is clear from the evidence of the workman and the

other witness examined on his behalf in rebuttal that on

05.03.1992, at about 9 AM, the workman received

information about the illness of his wife and the necessity

of his going to his house to take his wife to the hospital, so

he intimated such facts to Shri Dey and asked to give him

leave and thereafter, the left the workshop. It was also

submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that

though one of the charges levelled against the workman is

drunkenness, the workman was never examined medically

6170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to prove the same and the oral evidence is not sufficient to

prove the charges and as the party No. 1 has failed to

prove the charges, the workman is entitled to reinstatement

in service with continuity, full back wages and all

consequential benefits.

13. Admittedly, the preliminary issue regarding the

fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry has been

answered in favour of the workman. So, now, it is to be

considered as to whether the party No. 1 has been able to

prove the charges against the workman from the evidence

adduced before this Tribunal.

On perusal of the evidence of Shri Dey, the Suptd.

Engineer, who was abused in filthy language and threatened

to be killed, as per the allegation made in the charge sheet,

it is found that his evidence is quite consistent and as

already mentioned above, nothing has been brought out

in his cross-examination to disbelief his testimony. The

evidence of Shri Gadling the other witnesses examined by

party No. 1 is in complete corroboration to the evidence of

Shri Dey. The testimony of Shri Gadling has not at all been

shaken in the cross-examination. There is nothing on record

to show that either Shri Dey or Shri Gadling had any grudge

against the workman, so as to falsely implicate him in the

case. Their evidence cannot be disbelieved only because,

the matter was not reported to the police, as submitted by

the learned advocate for the workman. It is also clear from

the evidence of the said witnesses that the workman could

not be medically examined for drunkenness, as he fled away

from the workshop, when Shri Dey asked the security

inspector and Shri Gadling to take him to the hospital for

his medical examination.

14. Now the rebuttal evidence adduced by the

workman is to be considered. The workman has tried to

prove that on 05.03.1992 at about 9 AM while he was on

duty, he received information about the illness of his wife

and the necessity of taking her to the hospital and as such,

he informed about the same to Shri Dey and requested for

giving him off for 05.03.1992 and then left the workshop for

his house and there was no incident on 05.03.1992 as

alleged by party No. 1 in the charge sheet. In this

connection, at first, it is to be mentioned that such a plea

has not at all been mentioned in the statement of claim. It is

also found that the workman has not come up with clean

hands to claim the relief. It is clear from the materials on

record and the own admission of the workman that two

separate charge sheet dated 5/6.03.1992 and 14/15.04.1992

were served on him for two different incidents dated

05.03.1992 and 14.04.1992 respectively. The workman has

not mentioned anything about submission of the charge

sheet dated 05/06.03.1992 in his statement of claim. Rather,

he has stated that though in the charge sheet, management

had stated the date of occurrence to be 14.04.1992, the

witness for the management stated the date of occurrence

as 05.03.1992, in the statement of claim.

Moreover, the evidence of the workman and the

witness examined by him is not only contradictory to each

other, but the same is also self contradictory.

The workman in his examination-in-chief on affidavit

has mentioned that he did not commit any misconduct as

mentioned in the charge sheet dated 5/6.3.1992 and on

05.03.1992, he reported for duty and when he was sitting in

the canteen and taking tea, he got information that his wife

fell down and it was necessary to take her to the hospital,

so he went to the workshop and informed Shri Dey about

the same and asked him to give him off, but Shri Dey scolded

him and he (workman) did not say anything and after striking

off his attendance, he left for his house. Demolishing his

own evidence given in the examination-in-chief, the

workman in his cross-examination has stated that on

05.03.1992 after marking attendance, he did not go to the

canteen and at about 8.30 AM on 05.03.1992, when he was

in the workshop, his nephew came to the workshop and

informed him about the illness of his wife and after getting

information of the illness of his wife, he informed about the

same to Shri Dey and he did not go to the Time office and

Shri Dey did not reply anything and then he informed

Mr. Akre, the Fitter, about the illness of his wife and that he

had already informed the same to Shri Dey and left the

workshop.

The statement of Shri Ginnalwar, the other witness

examined by the workman itself is contradictory to the

evidence of the workman. This witness has stated that on

05.03.1992 at about 10/10.30 AM, while the workman was in

the workshop, he was informed that some relative had come

to meet him, so the workman went to outside of the

workshop and after sometime, he went to the cabin of

Shri Dey and at about 10.50 AM, the workman came out of

the cabin of Shri Dey and informed them about getting

information of illness of his wife from the relative and about

his informing the same to Shri Dey and to give him off and

he left for his house. The workman in his evidence has not

stated that Shri Ginnalwar was on duty on 05.03.1992 and

he informed Shri Ginnalwar about getting information about

the illness of his wife and informing about the same to

Shri Dey. So, the evidence of Shri Ginnalwar can be said to

be hearsay evidence. Moreover, as the evidence of the

workman and Shri Ginnalwar is so contradictory to each

other that, it is not possible to place reliance on the same.

15. From the evidence adduced by the party No. 1, it

is found that party No. 1 has been able to prove that on

05.03.1992 at about 10 AM, the workman entered into the

cabin of Shri Dey in a state of intoxication and abused him

in filthy language and threatened to kill him and even

though he was on duty in the workshop in the general

shift, he left the workshop without any permission. The

party No. 1 has been able to prove all the three charges

levelled against the workman in the charge sheet dated

5/6.03.1992.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6171

16. Now, the only question remains for consideration

is regarding the punishment. Commission of serious

misconducts has been proved against the workman. So

the punishment of dismissal of the workman from services

seems to be the appropriate punishment for commission of

such serious misconduct. Hence, there is no need to

interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman

Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of New Majri Open

Cast Sub Area of WCL in dismissing Shri G. V. Pazare, Ex.

Fitter Helper from service w.e.f. 01.09.1992 is legal and

justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2321-—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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@2002½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4@10@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@111@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2002)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Hasdeo Area of SECL, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

04.10.2013.

[No. L-22012/111/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2002

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Vice President,

R. C. W.F.,

PO : South Jhagrakhand,

Distt. Korea,

Chhattisgarh

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Hasdeo Area of SECL,

PO : South Jhagrakhand,

Distt. Korea (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of September 2013

1. As per letter dated 21-2-2013 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/

111/2001-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

Hadeo Area of SECL, PO South Jhagrakhand,

Distt. Korea (Chhattisgarh) in not providing

the employment on compassionate ground to

Shri Mahanth Kumar, S/o Ram Abhilash is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim. The

case of workman is that he was working as Driller in South

Jhagrakhand Colliery. He sustained personal injury by

accident on 5-1-75 while in employment in underground.

He received spinal injury and suffering from Paraplegia. He

was declared disabled are medically unfit. He was paid

compensation in 1978 under Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923. That the agreement/settlement dated 18-2-79 was

confirmed time to time. The employment to dependents of

deceased and medically unfit employees due to illness and

injury etc. It is pointed out that one Late Ram Prasad Drill

mazdoor was also involved in the same accident who expired

due to this accident and his some Neem Sharan was given

employment as dependent. The applicant was denied

appointment on compassionate ground on the same

principles. The applicant/Union prays appointment on

compassionate ground to Mahanth Kumar, S/o Ram

Abhilash.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement denying the claim

of workman. It is submitted that the service conditions of

employees working in Coal India are covered by settlement

under NCWA. The provisions of employment to the

dependent are incorporated in NCWA w.e.f. 1-1-1979.

Clause 10-4-3 provides employment to one dependent of

the disabled workman or on death of workman in service.

That the workman was compensated by way of payment of

Rs. 100% compensation under Workmen Compensation

Act. There is no provision to provide employment to

dependents of comapassionate ground. The claim of the

applicant is not tenable. Union has no locus standi to raise

the dispute. Shri Ramabhilas met with an accident on

5-1-75 therefore was paid 100% compensation. The cause

of action arose on the date of accident when the dispute has

been raised in the year 2000 i.e. after a lapse of 25 years. All

6172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

other contentions of Ist party workman are denied. The

management prayed for rejection of the claim of 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 action of the

Chief General Manager,

In Affirmative

Hadeo Area of SECL, PO

South Jhagrakhand, Distt.

Korea (Chhattisgarh) in not

providing the employment on

compassionate ground to

Shri Mahanth Kumar, S/o

Ram Abhilash is legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Relief prayed

workman is entitled to?"

by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

5. Present reference is referred for legality of claim

for appointment on compassionate ground to the

dependents of Shri Ram Abhilash who died on 5-1-75. Claim

of the Union is opposed. Management contention is that

100% compensation was paid under Workmen's

Compensation Act therefore the claim for appointment on

compassionate ground is not tenable. The Ist party Union

did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim.

Management filed affidavit of its witness G. Shyamala Rao.

The witness of the management has stated that Ramvilas

working as Driller met with accident on 5-1-75. He was paid

100% compensation. Even otherwise the claimant has for

the first time applied for employment on compassionate

ground in the year 1990 i.e. after lapse of 15 years from the

date of accident. The dispute is referred after 25 years. The

evidence of the witness of the management remained

unchallenged as Union Representative failed to cross-

examine the witness therefore I find no reason to disbelieve

evidence of management's witness. Union has not adduced

any evidence to substantiate claim for appointment on

compassionate ground appear legal. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No. 1.

6. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

the claim of Union for appointment on compassionate

ground is not substantiated therefore relief prayed by Union

deserves to be rejected.

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

(1)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Hadeo

Area of SECL, PO South Jhagrakhand, Distt. Korea

(Chhattisgarh) in not providing the employment

on compassionate ground to Shri Mahanth

Kumar, S/o Ram Abhilash is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2322-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

lh 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 114@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@52@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/

2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Khadi and Village Industries

Commission, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/10/2013.

[No. L-42012/52/2000-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/114/2001

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Rakesh Gopale,

S/o Shri Amrit Rao Gopale,

Qtr. No. EWS-68, Kotra,

Sultanabad, Bhopal

....Workman

Versus

The Director,

Khadi & Village Industries Commission,

B-3/4, Office Ccomplex,

Bhopal.

The Manager,

Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan,

27, Bhadbhada Road, T.T. Nagar,

Bhopal.

....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 6th day of September, 2013)

1. As per letter dated 14-6-2001 by the Government

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6173

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/

52/2000-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Khadi

and Village Industries Commission, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Gopale,

S/o Shri Amrit Rao Gopale w.e.f. 30-1-2000 without

complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

he is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Pages 3 to 7. Case of Ist party is that he was verbally

appointed as daily wage employee and worked as peon

and salesman from 11 AM to 8 PM in salesman office. From

1-1-96 till 30-1-2000 in office of IInd party No. 2. That he

had completed 240 days service during the years. He had

signed attendance register, payment voucher, his services

were discontinued without notice, without paying any

compensation, conciliation proceeding before Labour Court,

IInd party contented that he was employee of Tiger Security

Services as per the agreement with the said security service.

On FOC proceeding the dispute is referred. Ist party

workman submits that his services are terminated without

notice, without paying retrenchment compensation is

illegal. He prays for reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 51 to

53. Preliminary objection is raised that contractor, Tiger

Security Services is not included as party. Therefore

reference is not tenable. IInd party submits that it had

entered in agreement with Tiger Security services on

20-3-94. Said Tiger security service is providing security

service to the IInd party. Said security service is responsible

for payment of wages to the employees. Ist party workman

was not appointed by IInd party. Wages were not paid by

IInd party to the workman. Appointment letter was not

issued to him. Services of Ist party workman were

terminated by Tiger Secuirty Services and not by IInd party.

On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of the claim.

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

management of Khadi and

In Affirmative

Village Industries

Commission, Bhopal in

terminating the services of

Shri Rakesh Gopale, S/o Shri

Amrit Rao Gopale w.e.f.

30-1-2000 without complying

with the provisions of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act is

legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Relief prayed

workman is entitled to?"

by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

5. Though Ist party workman is challenging

termination of his service, workman remained absent despite

of repeated notices issued to him. He was proceeded

exparte. The workman has not filed any evidence to

substantiate his claim. IInd party filed affidavit of evidence

of Shri Ajay Verma. The witness of the management has

stated that it had entered in agreement with M/s. Tiger

Security Services. Said security service is responsible for

payment of wages to the employees working on its

establishment. That Ist party workman was employee of

Tiger Security Services. The contractor is not included as

party in reference proceeding. Workman remained absent

and failed to cross-examine the management's witness. The

evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged.

Workman has not adduced any evidence. Considering the

evidence of management's witness, it is clear that the

workman has failed to substantiate his claim that he is

employee of IInd party and his services are terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I

hold that services of Ist party workman are not terminated

by the IInd party. There is no question of any irregularity.

Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 1.

6. Point No. 2— In view of finding in Point No. 1 that

the services of Ist party workman are not terminate by

management, the relief prayed by workman is rejected.

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

(1)

Action of the management of Khadi and Village

Industries Commission, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Rakesh Gopale, S/o Shri Amrit

Rao Gopale w.e.f. 30-1-2000 without complying

with the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act is

legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2323-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

19@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@10@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@107@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

6174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 19/2004 of

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

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Coalfield

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/10/2013.

[No. L-22012/107/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/19/2004

Date 13.09.2013

Party No. 1:

The General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited of Pench

Area,

PO: Parasia, Dist. Chhindwara, (MP).

Party No. 2:

The General Secretary,

RKKMS (INTUC), Chandametta,

Chhindwara (MP)

AWARD

(Dated: 13th September, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri D.C. Pande,

for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/107/2003-IR (CM-

II) dated 30.01.2004, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Pench Area PO: Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in

terminating the services of Shri D.C. Pandey, Senior

Store Keeper, Barkuhi hospital of WCL Parasia

on 24.11.2001 justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the eference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri D.C. Pandey,

('the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and

the management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their

written statement.

In the statement of claim, it is pleaded by the

workman that he came to be appointed in Rawanwara

Colliery of the Party No. 1 on 1.5.1972 and as his service

record was clean, promotion was granted to him from time

to time and he reached upto the post of Senior Store Keeper

and while he was working as such, on 12.8.1999, as charge

sheet was issued against him, wherein, various false

charges were leveled and he submitted his reply to the

charge sheet on 14.8.1999 by denying the charges leveled

against him and the charges leveled against him were on

the allegations that "he being the Sotre Keeper of Barkuhi

Central hospital, in the year 1998-99, did not take any action

for purchase of medicines in wholesale, but collected

quotations from the local chemists and druggists and

purchased medicines in piecemeal in a much higher rate"

and according to the purchase manual of CIL, the

subsidiary companies of CIL can procure material

depending on the merit of the requirement assessed by the

Dy. Chief Medical Officer and the Dy. Chief Medical Officer

of Barkuhi hospital directed him to collect quotations from

the parties and accordingly, he obtained quotations from

the parties and submitted the same to the Dy. Chief Medical

Officer, Barkuhi hospital, who in turn authorized the Medical

Superintendent, Shri M.K. Joshi, 'E-5' rank of Barkuhi

hospital to process the quotations and accordingly, Shri

Joshi prepared the comparative statement of the quotations

and he (workman) had not purchased the medicines and he

is also not competent or authorized to do so and as such,

the charge sheet issued against him is illegal and suffered

from infirmities and therefore, the same is laible to be

quashed and set aside. It is also pleaded by the workman

that the Dy. Chief Medical Officer, Dr. V.S. Tiwari and Medical

Superintendent, Dr. M.K. Joshi were also served with charge

sheet dated 3.8.1999 containing similar charges as leveled

against him and Dr. Tiwari being his Disciplinary Authority

issued the charge sheet against him with the malafide

intention to save his own skin and to make him (workman)

the scape goat to cover the misconduct and he did not

have any role in purchase of medicines and the General

Manager, Pench Area constituted a committee, consisting

of two doctors and one Sr. Accounts Officer for scrutiny of

the medical bills and the said committee submitted its report

on 23.9.1999 and the same was also approved by the General

Manager and according to the said report, he (workman)

collected the quotations and on randon checking the price

of the medicines purchased was found to be less than the

M.R.P. and from the said report, it could have been found

that the was not guilty of the misconduct as alleged in the

charge sheet and the Dy. Chief Medical Officer, Pench area

wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Kanhan Area on

14.11.2000, asking him to intimate the price in regard to the

medical items, for which the enquiry was going on against

him and the C.M.O., Kanhan Area intimated vide his letter

dated 14.11.2000 that IV Sets were not purchased from Relief

Medicos, Barkuhi during the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000

and no hand gloves were purchased from Sanjay Medical

Pharmasis during 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which also shows

that no misconduct was committed by him and in spite of

the letter of the General manager regarding withdrawal of

black listing of Relief Medicos and recommendation for

purchase and reimbursement of medical bills, the charge

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6175

sheet against him was not withdrawn and the Inquiry Officer

also failed to appreciate the materials on record regarding

local purchase of medicines and so also the evidence of

Dr. M.K. Joshi and Dr. V.K. Tiwari and during the enquiry,

he demanded for relevant documents for his defence, which

were in possession of the management, but such documents

were not supplied to him and thus the principles of natural

justice were not followed and management failed to examine

the main witness, Mr. Kutty, the Vigilance Officer, basing

on whose complaint, the charges sheet was issued against

him and thus he was deprived of cross-examining the said

witness, which was also violative of the principles of natural

justice and the Inquiry Officer was biased and he concluded

the enquiry in a haste and for that he filed a writ before the

Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Court directed the

Party No. 1 to consider the reply to the show cause notice,

filed by him before passing of the final order and the order

of dismissal is illegal and as such, he is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

3. In its written statement, the Party No. 1 has pleaded

inter-alia that while the workman was working as the Senior

Store Keeper in Barkuhi hospital, during the period

1998-99, he did not process for purchase of medicines in

whole sale on rate contract and purchased medicines in

piece meal in a higher rate and thus he committed

misconduct of fraud and dishonesty and for such

misconduct, charge sheet dated 12.8.1999 under clause 26.1

and 26.22 of the certified Standing Order was issued against

him and the workman submitted his reply denying the

charges and as the reply submitted by the workman was

not found satisfactory, it was decided to conduct

departmental enquiry against him and one Shri S. Kerketta,

Personnel Manager was appointed as the Inquiry Officer

and Dr. V.K. Tiwari was appointed as the management

representative and the Inquiry Officer fixed several sittings

of the enquiry by issuing memo of enquiry from time to

time and the workman fully participated in the enquiry with

the assistance of his co-worker, Shri C. Bhattachaya, the

General Secretary of RKKMS and he was granted full

opportunity to defend his case and the witnesses examined

by the department were cross-examined by the workman

through his co-worker and after closure of the evidence

from their side, the workman was asked to adduce evidence

from his side and the workman submitted a written statement

containing five pages, which was treated as his examination-

in-chief and he was cross-examined by the management

and thereafter the workman did not want to lead further

evidence, so the enquiry proceeding was closed and the

departmental proceeding was held legally, properly and by

following the principles of natural justice and the Inquiry

Officer submitted his findings holding the workman guilty

of the charges leveled against him and the findings are

supported by legal evidence and on receipt of the findigs

of the Inquiry Officer on 17.9.2001, the workman was issued

with the show cause notice alongwith a copy of the report

submitted by the Inquiry Officer and the workman

submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide his

letter dated 1.10.2001 and while the final decision was

pending, the workman filed writ petition No. 5251/2001

before the Hon'ble High Court, Jabalpur challenging the

departmental enquiry and findings of the Inquiry Officer,

however, the Hon'ble Court while disposing of the writ

petition was pleased to give direction to consider the plea

taken by the workman in his show cause, before passing of

the final order and in compliance to the direction of the

Hon'ble Court, the plea taken by the workman was

considered and the final order imposing punishment of

termination from service was passed on 24.11.2001 and

being aggrieved by the said order, the workman filed an

appeal but the same was dismissed and the action of the

management in dismissing the workman from service is

legal, proper and justified, in view of the serious misconduct

proved against him.

4. As this is a case termination of the services of the

workman after holding of a departmental enquiry against

him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry

was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and

by order dated 03.01.2011, the departmental enquiry

conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper

and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the petitioner that the workman was

working as the senior store keeper in Barkuhi Area hospital

and the job assigned to him was to keep the records of the

store and to assist the hospital authority and the workman,

Dr. V.S. Tiwari (the Dy. Chief Medical Officer) and Dr. M.K.

Joshi (Medical Superintendent) of Barkuhi hospital were

charge sheeted, on the allegations of purchasing of

medicines and surgical items unauthorisedly on higher

prices and Dr. V.S. Tiwari against whom charge sheet had

been submitted for commission of the misconduct like the

workman, submitted the charge sheet against the workman

and in his reply to the charge sheet, it was clearly mentioned

by the workman that medicines and other medical items

were purchased by the competent authority, Dr. V.S. Tiwari

and Dr. M.K. Joshi as per the delegation of powers by

calling quotations from the local authorized distributors of

the manufacturers and not by him and as per the direction

of the General Manager of Pench Area, an enquiry committee

consisting of three members was constituted to make

enquiry and the enquiry committee made enquiry and

scrutinized the relevant medical bills, registers and other

documents and submitted their report and in the said

report, it was mentioned that the usual purchase procedure

of obtaining three quotations was followed and the

workman obtained the quotations and on random checking,

it was confirmed that price charges were less than MRP

and the hospital prices list applicable to Government

Institutions was not available to Barkuhi hospital and it

6176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was difficult to obtain, as these items are of several varieties

and are of different companies and it was also recommended

by the committee that the method of purchase from local

market has been done as per practice by the purchase cell

of the hospital during the year, as one time arrangement,

since the medicines have been purchased and consumed,

this may be approved and in view of the enquiry it was

clear that neither any irregularity nor any misconduct was

committed by the workman, so the charge sheet should

have been withdrawn and he should have been exonerated

from the charges levelled against him, as has been done in

the cases of Dr. M.K. Joshi and Dr. V.K. Tiwari from the

same charges and this itself shows malicious treatment

with the workman and the same is illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to the principles of natural justice and the workman

was made the scapegoat and Dr. V.S. Tiwari was punished

with minor punishment of censure considering his

superannuation, lenient view was taken against him and

Dr. M.K. Joshi was exonerated from the charges and the

same parameter should have been applied against the

workman, who was also nearing superannuation and

Dr. M.R. Joshi and Dr. V.S. Tiwari were examined as

witnesses in the enquiry and Dr. Tiwari acted as the

presenting officer also and the enquiry officer gave

erroneous findings by closing his eyes of such glaring

irregularities and the charge sheet submitted against the

workman is bad in law and the workman being the store

keeper was not competent to purchase any medicine or

surgical item and Dr. V.S. Tiwari and Dr. M.K. Joshi were

the competent authorities to purchase the same and the

findings of the enquiry office are against the evidence on

record and the same are perverse and the punishment

impose is shockingly disproportionate and the workman is

entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full

back wages and all other consequential reliefs.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the Learned

Advocate for the party no. 1 that it has already been held

by this Tribunal that the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman is legal, proper and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and commission of

serious misconducts has already been proved against the

workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry

and the punishment imposed against the workman cannot

be said to be shockingly disproportionate and therefore,

there is no scope for the Tribunal to interfere with the

punishment.

It was further submitted by the Learned Advocate

for the party no. 1 that the workman has not been able to

show that lenient punishment was imposed against the

doctors and the doctors, the same cannot be a ground to

interfere with the punishment imposed against the

workman.

In support of such contentions, the Learned

Advocate for the party no. 1 placed reliance on the

decisions reported in (1997) 6 SCC-159 (Punjab Dairy

Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kalasingh), 1995 LAB

IC-311 (Government of Tamilnadu Vs. A. Rajapandian),

(1997) 6 SCC-75 (Commissioner of Police Vs. Jayasurian),

2009-I-LLJ-220 (SC) (West Bokaro Colliery Vs. Ram Parvesh

Singh) and 2011-1-LLJ-665 (MP) Gurmit Singh Vs. Punjab

and Sindh Bank).

7. Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it

proper to mention the settle principles in regarding to the

power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the

disciplinary matter of punishment by string of authorities

including the decisions cited by the Learned Advocate for

the party no. 1.

It is clear from the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that the Tribunal cannot sit as a court

of Appeal over a decision based on the findings and where

there is some relevant materials which the disciplinary

authority has accepted and which materials reasonably

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary

authority, it is not the function of the Tribunal to review

the same and reach different finding than that of the

disciplinary authority. However, it is also well settled by

the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where there is no

doubt in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry

into the charges for misconduct against an employee, the

Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal, where the

finding is perverse or where there is no prima facie case

and in such a case, the Tribunal does not sit as a court of

appeal, weighing or re-appreciating the evidence itself, but

only examines the finding of the enquiry officer on the

evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is.

So, keeping in view the principles settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present

case in hand is to be considered.

8. Admittedly, the workman was working as the

senior store keeper at Barkuhi hospital of WCL and charge

sheet no. 1393/99 dated 12.08.1999 was issued against

him, under clauses 26.1 and 26.22 of the certified standing

order. The allegations made in the charge sheet against

the workman were that he was working as the senior store

keeper in Central hospital, Barkuhi and in the year 1998-

1999 and he instead of taking steps for purchasing of

medicines in wholesale, collected quotations from the

local retailers and made to purchase eight hundred pieces

of I.V. sets from Relief Meicare, Badkuhi (200 pieces on

four occasions vide bill nos. 10197, 10201, 10202 and 10203

dated 08.12.1998, 22.12.1998, 02.01.1999 and 15.01.1999

respectively) and 300 of disposable hand gloves from

Sanjay Medicals, Parasia (100 pieces on three occasions

vide bill nos. 10633, 10647 and 10773 dated 08.09.1998,

09.09.1998 and 17.09.1998 respectively) in a much higher

rate and due to such action, heavy monetary loss was to

be sustained by the company.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6177

Clauses 26.1 and 26.22 of the certified standing order

read as follows:

26.1— Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection

with the employer's business or property.

26.22— Any willful and deliberate act which is

subversive of discipline or which may detrimental

to the interest of the company.

9. Perused the documents of the departmental enquiry

held against the workman including the report submitted

by the enquiry officer. It is clear from the evidence on record

of the enquiry that the Incharge of Central hospital Barkuhi

has the authority to give orders for purchase of medicines

and in case of non-availability of any particular medicine in

the store, the store incharge/sernior store keeper makes

the proposal for local purchase of the said medicine and

after the same is approved by the Incharge of the hospital,

the medicine is being purchased locally. It is also clear from

the materials on record of the departmental enquiry that

the workman as the senior store keeper collected the

quotations for purcahse of the items as mentioned in the

charge sheet and after approval of the purchase committee

of the lowest quotation and as per the direction of the

purchase committee, the workman purchased the said item

locally. Though party No. 1 gave the comparative price of

I.V. set and disposable hand gloves supplied to Kanhan

Area Hospital in a lower rate than the rate of the items

purchased locally for Barkuhi hospital and bills of such

supply of the articles to Kanhan Area hospital in a lower

rate were produced, there is no allegation and so also no

evidence on record to show that the quality and company

of the articles purchased by Barkuhi hospital and supplied

to Kanhan area hospital were the same. It is also clear from

the evidence on record of the enquiry that the workman

had no power to pass order for purchase of medicines or

other articles for the hospital or to purchase the same and

it is the Incharge of the hospital, who has the said power. It

is also clear from the evidence on record of the enquiry

that as per the direction of the purchasing committee of the

hospital, the workman purchased the articles for the

hospital. So, the findings of the enquiry officer that the

charges under clauses 26.1 and 26.22 are proved against

the workman are totally against the evidence on record of

the enquiry and are perverse. Hence, the punishment

imposed against the workman basing on such perverse

finding is illegal and is unsustainable. Hence, the

punishment of termination imposed against the workman

is to be set aside.

10. So far the submission made by the learned

advocate for the workman regarding discriminating

treatment towards the workman is concerned, the workman

in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of claim has

specifically mentioned that charge sheets dated 03.08.1999

were served on Dr. V.S. Tiwari, the Deputy Medical Officer,

Barkuhi hospital and Dr. M.K. Joshi, Medical Suptd. Barkuhi

hospital, who prepared the comparative statement of the

quotations for purchase of medical items and in the charge

sheets, charges similar to the charges levelled against him

were levelled against the said two doctors and charge sheet

was submitted against him on 12.08.1999 by the said two

doctors to make him scapegoat with the intention to cover

up their misconduct and in paragraph 19 of the statement

of claim, it has been pleaded by the workman that Dr. V.S.

Tiwari and Dr. M.K. Joshi were let off by the party No. 1

and thus a discriminatory treatment was given to him. In

the written statement, party No. 1 has not all dealt with

such pleadings made by the workman. The workman in his

evidence on affidavit had also mentioned about party No.

1 levelling similar charges against Dr. Tiwari and Dr. Joshi

in the charge sheet submitted respectively against them

and that they were let off by the party No. 1 and his such

evidence was not at all challenged. It is also found from the

documents filed by the workman that Dr. V.S. Tiwari and Dr.

M.K. Joshi were also charge sheeted for similar charges as

levelled against the workman and Dr. M.K. Joshi was

exonerated from the charges by order dated 21.02.2000 and

Dr. V.S. Tiwari was only censured by order dated 21.02.2000.

So, it is clear from the material on record that the workman

was discrimination in the matter of imposition of the

punishment and on this ground also, the punishment

imposed against the workman is not sustainable.

11. Now, the question remains for consideration is as

to what relief or reliefs, the workman is entitled. Taking the

entire facts and circumstances of the case in hand into

consideration, it is found that the workman is entitled to

reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages

and all consequential benefits. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL, Pench Area

PO: Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in terminating the services

of Shri D.C. Pandey, Senior Store Keeper, Barkuhi hospital

of WCL Parasia on 24.11.2001 is unjustified. The order to

termination of the services of the workman dated 24.11.2001

is quashed and set aside. The management of WCL is

directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity

i.e. w.e.f. 02.11.2001 and to pay full back wages and all

consequential benefits. As it is found that the

superannuation date of the workman has already been

elapsed, the workman be nominally reinstated in service

w.e.f. 02.11.2001 and he be given the back wages and

monetary benefits of all consequential benefits till the date

of superannuation and so also the retirements benefits.

The party No. 1 is directed to give effect to the award,

within one month of the publication of the award in the

official gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

6178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2324-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

58@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@249@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 58/2004 of

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of WCL, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 04.10.2013.

[No. L-22012/249/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/58/2004

Date: 13.09.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Chief General Manager, WCL,

Pench Area, PO: Parasia, Chhindwara

(MP)

Party No. 2:

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh (INTUC), Regional Officer,

Chandametta, Chhindwara

AWARD

(Dated: 13th September, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Kashiprasad,

for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/249/2003-IR (CM-

II) dated 13.05.2004, with the following schedule:—

vuqlwph

D;k izca/kra= phQ tujy eSustj] osLVuZ dksyQhYM

fyfeVsM] isap ,fj;k iksñ ijkfl;k ftyk fNUnokM+k eñizñ ds

izca/ku }kjk Jh dk'khizlkn Vksñ uañ 336 chñthñ lk;fMax

ijkfl;k ftyk fNUnokM+k dks o"kZ 1996 ls 1998 rd yksfMax

DydZ dk dk;Z fy, tkus i'pkr~ bl in ds ykHk ,oa

fu;ferhdj.k dh ik=rk u fn, tkus dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ksfpr

gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dk gdnkj

gS\

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Kashiprasad,

("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and

the management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he was initially apointed as a

general mazdoor category-I in the year 1993 in the

excavation division, Pench area and thereafter, on

consideration of his eligibility and skill, he was promoted

to category-C and then to category-B and then to category-

A in the same division w.e.f. 01.10.1989 and 01.01.1998

respectively and on 13.12.1990, while he was discharging

his duties, in Shiopuri open cast Mine, he sustained severe

injuries in course of his employment as a result of which,

he became partially disable and was referred to the Medical

Board, for his examination and after examination, the

Medical board declared him unfit for his original duties

and on the recommendation of the Medical board, he was

transferred to B.G. siding of Shiopuri open cast mine and

was posted as a loading clerk w.e.f. 01.02.1995, on the basis

of his educational qualification and the post of loading

clerk falls under clerical grade-II as per the staffing, pattern

and he was assured regarding payment of wages as

applicable to the said post, by party No. 1, but, even though,

he was discharging the duties of loading clerk, he was paid

the wages of category-IV and till date also, he is being paid

the wages of category-IV, which is contrary to the service

Rules and on 08.04.1998, he was posted as loading mate-

category-IV by the party No. 1 illegally, even though he

was posted as loading clerk w.e.f. 01.02.1995 and completed

more than 3 years of continuous service on that post and

as such, he was entitled for regularisation on the post of

loading clerk with salary of the said post and post of loading

mate category-IV is neither included under the wage board

nor under the staff pattern and as such, the action of the

party no. 1 in posting of as loading mate category-IV was

most illegal and arbitrary and amounted to unfair labour

practice contemplated under schedule-IV of the Act and

contrary to the labour laws.

The further case of the workman is that the maximum

period of probation is six months under the service Rules

applicable to the employees of party no. 1 and the period

of probation can be extended by another three months and

as he had served on the post of loading clerk grade-II

continuously for more than three years, he had acquired

the status of confirmed employee as loading clerk-II and as

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6179

such, his appointment as loading mate category-IV by party

No. 1 is quite unjust, improper, illegal and the same was

done with malafide intention for depriving him from

regularisation on the post of loading clerk grade-II.

The workman has prayed for a direction to party

No. 1 for payment of wages of loading clerk grade-II w.e.f.

01.02.1995 and to regularize his services on the said post

with consequential benefits.

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the terms of reference is factually

incorrect and prejudicial to its interest and the Government

exercised excess of jurisdiction by arriving at a wrong

conclusion that the workman worked as loading clerk for

the period from 1996 to 1998 and as such, the order of

reference is illegal and the same is not maintainable and the

claim is highly belated and hence, not maintainable and the

workman has claimed promotions to the post of clerk

grade-II and promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of

right, as it is a managerial function. It is further pleaded by

party No. 1 that the service conditions of coal mines

workers are governed by National Coal Wage Agreement

and the said Coal Wage Agreement carries job nomenclature

and cadre scheme for all categories and the cadre scheme

contains designation, post, grade, scale of pay, eligibility

criteria of employees for promotion and mode of promotion

etc. and the provisions of mines rules are applicable to the

employees working in coal industry and the workman was

working as a driver in excavation division and he was

transferred alongwith other employees working in different

units/colliery to B.G. siding vide office order no. 897/95

dated 15.01.1995, where in the designation of each worker

was given and in pursuance to the said order, the workman

was released by the manager, Kukarmunda OC Mines,

where he was working by office order dated 21.01.1995 and

the workman submitted his joining report at B.G siding and

in the LPC issued in respect of the workman, the designation

of the workman was mentioned as excavator operator and

the workman, while working at BG siding, submitted an

application dated 11.09.1999 requesting the management

to give him the job of loading mate and his application was

considered by it and he was permitted to discharge the

duties of loading mate and consequently, vide office order

No. 148 dated 27.06.2000, the services of the workman was

confirmed in the post of loading mate category-IV and

according his pay was fixed as per the pay scale attached

with the post of loading mate of category-IV and the

designation of the workman from driver to loading mate

was changed as per his request. It is also pleaded by party

no. 1 that the workman was not posted to B.G. siding as

loading clerk w.e.f. 01.12.1995 and he did not discharge the

duties of loading clerk and he was allowed to work as

loading mate category-IV as per his own request and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties, besides relying on documentary

evidence, have led oral evidence in support of their

respective claims. The workman has examined himself as a

witness in support of his case, whereas, one Shri Samir

Barla, the Manager (personnel) has been examined as a

witness by party no. 1.

In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, the

workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim. However, in his cross-examination the workman

has admitted that the service conditions of the employees

of coal India are governed by the provisions of NCWA and

under NCWA, there is cadre scheme for each category of

employees and as per order dated 15.01.1995 (document

Ext. M-2), he himself and seven other drivers were transferred

to B.G. siding and as per document, Ext. M-3, dated

21.01.1995, he was released from his duties by the Manager

Kukurmunda OC Mine to report for duty to the Manager

B.G. siding and Ext. M-4 is the copy of his joining report

dated 01.02.1995 at B.G. siding and Ext. M-5 is the copy of

his LPC, Ext. M-6 is his application dated 11.10.1999 to the

Manager B.G. siding and Ext. M-7 is the order of his pay

fixation. The workman has also admitted that after he was

declared medically unfit, alternative job was given to him

by the management in a lower category and he did not

receive any written order regarding his posting as a loading

clerk w.e.f. 01.02.1995 and he also did not receive the wages

of a loading clerk and management cannot appoint any

body directly as a clerk grade-II and appointment to clerk

grade-II is made by way of promotion from clerk grade-III.

5. The evidence of the witness for the management

is also in the line of the stands taken by the party no. 1 in

the written statement though this witness has been cross-

examined at length, nothing of substance has been brought

out in the cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman (as per the written notes

of argument) that the documents filed by the workman are

admitted by party no. 1 and they have been marked as Exts.

W-I to W-XXV and the case of the workman is proved by

the document, Ext.-XXV and it is clear from the

documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence of the

workman that he worked as a loading clerk and thus he is

entitled for his regularization as loading clerk grade-II and

wages of a loading clerk grade-II from 1995.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 that the workman was never posted as a

loading clerk at B.G. siding and it is clear from the

documentary evidence and so also the oral evidence

adduced by party no. 1 that the workman worked as a

loading mate and on his application dated 11.10.1999, he

was permitted to work as a loading mate and by order dated

27.06.2000, his services as loading mate were confirmed

and the workman is entitled to any relief.

8. On perusal of the evidence on record, both oral

and documentary, it is found that the workman while

working as a driver at Kukurmunda Mine was transferred

6180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2, 2013/KARTIKA 11, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to B.G. siding alongwith seven other drivers as per the

office order dated 15.01.1995, Ext. W-X and in pursuance to

the said order, he was released from Kukurmunda OC Mine

by the Manager to join at B.G. siding as per the office order,

Ext. W-XI. It is also found that the workman submitted his

joining report to the Manager, B.G. siding on 01.02.1995 as

per Ext. M-3. In his joining report, the workman has

mentioned has designation as driver. Ext. W-XXII is the

office copy of the application submitted by the workman

to the Manager, B.G. siding. Ext. W-XXII, the workman has

clearly mentioned that he is being asked to drive heavy

vehicle after his transfer to B.G. siding and as due to accident

his hand became defective, there is chance of accident and

as such, he be provided duty in the Token office. From Ext.

W-XXII, it is found that after his joining at B.G. siding, he

was working as a driver and not as a loading clerk.

So far the document, Ext. W-XXV is concerned, the

same is the caste certificate of the workman, which shows

that he is a member of the Schedule Caste and that document

is no way proves that the workman was working as a loading

clerk.

The workman has failed to file a single document to

show that he was posted as a loading clerk or was directed

to work as a loading clerk by any authority of party no 1 at

B.G. Siding. In his cross-examination also, he has admitted

that he did not receive any written order from the

management regarding his posting as a loading clerk w.e.f.

01.02.1995. On the other hand, the documents on record

show that he was transfer as a driver to B.G. siding from

Kukurmunda Mine and he joined as a driver and on his

request he was allowed to work as loading mate and was

subsequently regularized in the said post. The workman is

not entitled to any relief as claimed. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to

any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2325-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 uoEcj] 2013 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 [44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSa] ds micaè mM+hlk

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

^^ftyk vuxqy dh rkypsj rglhy esa FkekZy] cUrksy]

ck?kqvkcksy] txUukFkiqj] dqdqMqyk] ?kaViM+k ds jktLo xkao**A

[lañ ,l&38013@69@2013&,lñ,lñ I]

tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013

S.O. 2325.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the Ist November, 2013 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought

into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the

following areas in the State of Odisha namely:—

"The areas comprising of the revenue village of

Tharmal, Bantola, Baghuabola, Jagannathpur, Kukudula

and Ghantapada in the Tahsil of Talher, in the district of

Angul.

[No. S-38013/69/2013-S.S.-I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2326-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 uoEcj] 2013 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vfèfu;e ds

v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`r dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè

NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Øñ la[;k

jktLo xzke

rglhy

ftyk

1

2

3

4

1-

ljxcqafn;k

djryk

dksjck

2-

<u<uh

djryk

dksjck

3-

l.Msy

djryk

dksjck

4-

HkSlkeqM+k

djryk

dksjck

5-

cjikyh

djryk

dksjck

6-

idfj;k

djryk

dksjck

7-

uokikjk

djryk

dksjck

8-

iqjSuk

djryk

dksjck

9-

tosZ

djryk

dksjck

10-

[kjgjh

djryk

dksjck

11-

rjnk

djryk

dksjck

12-

dNjheky

djryk

dksjck

13-

Hkknk

djryk

dksjck

14-

cSxkikyh

djryk

dksjck

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 2] 2013@dk£rd 11] 1935

6181

1

2

3

4

15-

xqfe;k

djryk

dksjck

16-

tksxhikyh

djryk

dksjck

17-

dudh

djryk

dksjck

18-

Hkyigjh

dV?kksjk

dksjck

19-

ekVhdqM+h

dV?kksjk

dksjck

20-

ducsjh

dV?kksjk

dksjck

21-

frjxk

dV?kksjk

dksjck

22-

cq<+uk

dV?kksjk

dksjck

23-

iarksjk

cykSnk

dksjck

24-

djek

cykSnk

dksjck

25-

dsjkdNkj

cykSnk

dksjck

26-

xrok

cykSnk

dksjck

27-

irjkikyh

cykSnk

dksjck

28-

[kksM~My

dksjck

dksjck

29-

v[kikyh

dksjck

dksjck

30-

cjhfMg

dksjck

dksjck

31-

dVforyk

dksjck

dksjck

32-

nsojeky

dksjck

dksjck

33-

dqnqjeky

dksjck

dksjck

34-

mjxk

dksjck

dksjck

35-

iyknh

dksjck

dksjck

36-

igUnk

dksjck

dksjck

37-

ljbZMhg

dksjck

dksjck

38-

lsehQyh

dksjck

dksjck

39-

HkSlek

dksjck

dksjck

[lañ ,l&38013@64@2013&,lñ,lñ I]

tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2013

S.O. 2326.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st November, 2013 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought

into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the

following areas in the State of Chhattisgarh namely:—

S.No.

Revenue Village

Tehsil

District

1

2

3

4

1.

Saragbundia

Kartala

Korba

2.

Dhandhani

Kartala

Korba

3.

Sandel

Kartala

Korba

4.

Bhaisamuda

Kartala

Korba

5.

Barpali

Kartala

Korba

6.

Pakariya

Kartala

Korba

7.

Newapara

Kartala

Korba

8.

Puraina

Kartala

Korba

9.

Jarwe

Kartala

Korba

10.

Kharhari

Kartala

Korba

11.

Torda

Kartala

Korba

12.

Kachharimal

Kartala

Korba

13.

Bhada

Kartala

Korba

14.

Baigapali

Kartala

Korba

15.

Gumiya

Kartala

Korba

16.

Jogipali

Kartala

Korba

17.

Kanki

Kartala

Korba

18.

Bhalpahari

Katghora

Korba

19.

Kanberi

Katghora

Korba

20.

Matikura

Katghora

Korba

21.

Tirga

Katghora

Korba

22.

Budhna

Katghora

Korba

23.

Pantora

Baloda

Korba

24.

Karma

Baloda

Korba

25.

Kera Kachhar

Baloda

Korba

26.

Gatwa

Baloda

Korba

27.

Patrapali

Baloda

Korba

28.

Khoddal

Kartala

Korba

29.

Akhpali

Korba

Korba

30.

Baridih

Korba

Korba

31.

Katvitla

Korba

Korba

32.

Devarmal

Korba

Korba

33.

Kudurmal

Korba

Korba

34.

Urga

Korba

Korba

35.

Paladi

Korba

Korba