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- 46]
ubZ fnYyh, uoEcj 10—uoEcj 16] 2013] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 19—dk£rd 25] 1935
No. 46] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 10—NOVEMBER 16, 2013, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 19—KARTIKA 25, 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)
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2363-—dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vfèkfu;e] 1962
(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds vuqlj.k esa mDRk vf/fu;e ds v/hu xqtjkr jkT; vkSj nknj uxj gosyh la?k 'kkflr {ks=k ds
Hkhrj xsy (bf.M;k) fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbuksa ds fy;s l{ke vf/dkjh ds dk;ksZa dk fuoZgu djus ds fy;s Jh xks/ZuHkkbZ lksekHkkbZ
olkok] ekeykrnkj] xqtjkr ljdkj] dks fnukad 12&9&2013 ls izkf/Ñr djrh gS A igys izkf/d`r l{ke izkf/dkjh Jh vkj- ,e- pkS/jh dks
fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A
¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@30@*13&th- ih-º
,l- ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2013
S.O. 2363.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of
User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Gordhanbhai Somabhai Vasava, Mamlatdar,
Government of Gujarat to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India) Limited, under the
said Act, within the territory of Gujarat State & Dadra Nagar Haveli Union Territory w.e.f. 12-09-2013. Earlier notified
Competent Authority Shri R. M. Chaudhari stands de-notified.
[F. No. L-14014/30/’13-G. P.]
S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.
4661 GI/2013
(6249)
6250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2364-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj VkVk LVhy
fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
83@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&10&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@56@1998&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/1999)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 23-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/56/1998-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 AT DHANBAD
Present : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 83 of 1999
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
Sijua Colliery of M/s. TISCO and their
workmen.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
:
Mr. D. Mukherjee,
Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the management
:
Mr. D. K. Verma,
Ld. Adv.
State : Jharkhand/Bihar
Industry : Coal
Dhanbad, Dated : the 24th April, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/56/98-IR (C-I), dt. 22/29-1-1999.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Sijua
Colliery of M/s. TISCO in not providing employment
to Smt. Sukumari Devi w/o Late Jagdish Nonia, Ex-
Coal Dresser on compassionate ground, when her
husband died while in service, merely on the
technical ground taken by the management, as just
to complete 15 years of service is justified? If not to
what relief is she entitled ?’’
2. The case as sponsored by the Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union for petitioner Smt. Sukumari Devi is that
her Late Jagdish Nonia had continuously been a permanent
workman working as a Coal Dresser at Sijua Colliery
of M/s. TISCO since 12-3-1976. Unfortunately, he died on
2-2-1990 during the tenure of his service. The petitioner
represented before the management for providing her
dependant employment as per the provision of the
National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the settlement
implemented by the Opp./Management. But the Opp./
Management at that time assured her of a fevourable
decision and advised her to wait patiently for it as her
matter was referred to the Headquarter at Jamshedpur for
decision. Having known of the falsehood of the
assurance, She approached the Union for ventilating her
grievance. Accordingly the Union raised the Industrial
Dispute before the A.L.C.(C), Dhanbad for her employment
as dependant wife of the workman. But at the various
technical points of the Opp./Management in the
conciliation proceeding about the Union as unrecognised
and just completing of 15 years service of the workman,
the Opp./Management refused to provide her employment
as per provision of the NCWA and also on humanitarian
ground. The failure of the conciliation proceeding resulted
in the reference for an adjudication. The action of the Opp./
Management was not only vindictive, anti-labour practice
but illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principle
of natural justice.
3. The sponsoring Union in its rejoinder by
specifically denying the allegations of the Opp./
Management has stated that majority of the workmen are
members of the Union. The anti-labour management
recognised only a puppet Union. Since the management is
signatory to the settlement, it is legally bound to accept
the terms of Settlement, and to provide employment to the
petitioner dependent of deceased workman. The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 16] 2013@dk£rd 25] 1935
6251
management has no such scheme to overtide or supercede
the terms of settlement of NCWA. Any Award passed
by a Tribunal is not binding upon the Tribunal, because
any error of judgement cannot act as an estopped for
the Tribunal to pass a legal order. The question of seniority
in the matter of employment to the dependant under the
settlement of NCWA does not arise. The petitioner is not
claiming for employment on compassionate ground, but
as per her right accrued from the terms of settlement of
NCWA.
4. Whereas with a challenge to legally maintainability
of the reference, the Opp./Management has categorically
denied the allegation of the petitioner, and stated that the
Union has no locus standi to raise any industrial dispute
of a person who is not a workman of any establishment.
The workman named Jagdish Nonia was appointed on
12-3-1976, but he died on 2-2-1990 after completing of his
13 years 10 months service. As per the procedure for
employment of dependant of the employee, a workman
becomes eligible to get one of his dependants enrolled in
the Employees’ Dependant Register after completion of
minimum 15 years of his service. The employment is
provided to such dependant at the initial stage as a
temporary worker against temporary vacancy and
subsequent, he is taken on the permanent roll against
permanent vacancies. The dependants are selected in order
of seniority of the respective employees and the case of
each and every employee is considered within the frame
work of such guideline, No female employee is considered
as dependant for the purpose of employment as the
Company is having only underground mines, and no
opencast working. According to the Company’s procedure
for enrolment and appointment of the dependants, the
petitioner lady is not eligible nor qualified to the enrolled
as a dependant, as her Late husband workman had not
completed his 15 years of his service to get and dependant
enrolled for future employment. There is no provision for
providing employment on compassionate ground at the
discretion of the management which is bound by the
employment procedure which exists on the basis of
negotiation between the management and the recognised
union.
5. Further pleaded case of the Opp./Management is
that the management has given the recognised union to
decide the issue of dependant employment as per
provisions of NCWA or as per existing procedure of
employment followed by the Comapny. The recognised
union disagreed for adoption of NCWA and consented for
following the Company’s procedure which was found to
be more favourable to the workman as a whole. The NCWS
itself have endorsed the views that the provision of NCWS
will have no application to the employees of TISCO so far
as employments of dependants are concerned. None can
demand for the employment of his dependant, as no such
right exists for any party. The compassionate employment
on the choice of some officers has not been adopted in the
Company. All the employments of dependants are
considered strictly according to the procedure of seniority
as per general decision of the management and the
recognised union. The sponsoring Union appears to be
unaware of the procedure of employment of dependants
followed in the establishment of the Company, so it has
made out a case for compassionate employment without
any basis. Moreover, the demand for compassionate
employment six years after the death of workman is
belated, though in normal cases where there is provision
for employment of dependant on compassionate ground,
such employments are regretted. The management can
not concede to the petitioner lady’s employment when
there is no vacancy in the Company and large number of
dependants are in the waiting list demanding for their
absorption as temporary or permanent workman of the
Company. The concerned lady is not entitled to any
relief.
6. The Opp./Management in its rejoinder has stated
the management of M/s. TISCO follows its own employment
procedure duly approved by the recognised union and the
JBCCI which incorporated a special clause in the NCWA
itself.
FINDING WITH REASONING
7. In the instant case, WW1 Sheo Kumari Devi the
petitioner on behalf of the Union, and MW1 Dinesh
Kr. Sharma, Head Clerk for the Opp./Management have
been examined.
Claiming deceased Jagdish Nonia, the Stone cutter
at Sijua Colliery as her husband who died in the year 1990
as per his Death Certificate (dt. 3-2-1990 issued by the
Medical Officer, TATA SIZUA DISPENSARY, Bhelatand,
Dhansar-Ext.W.1) which mentions his death on 2-2-1990,
WW1 Sheo Kumari Devi, the petitioner herself has stated
that her late husband had nominated her his nominee as
per the Nomination Form (Ext.W.2) to draw gratuity in case
of his death. Her further statement is that in case of death
of any workmen, the management provides employment to
his legal heir on compassionate ground, even in cases where
the workman died before completion of his 15 years of
service, but the management refused her representation
for her compassionate employment on the plea about non-
completion of her husband’s service for 15 years, though
her claim for it is justified.
Whereas MW1 Dinesh Kr. Shrama, the Head Clerk,
H.R. Deptt. Central Office, Jamadoba for the O.P./
6252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management has affirmed the status of workman Late
Jagdish Nonia, initially appointed as Ex.M./Loader on
12-03-1976 and Ex-Coal Dresser as the employee of
Sijua Colliery of M/s TISCO as per the copy of his service
record (Ext.M.1) on formal proof waived), but he died in
the year 1990 without completing 15 years of his service,
and the petitioner was female. According to the MW1, as
per the letter of the R.C.M.S. dt. 7-2-1981 (Ext.M.2) the
implementation of NCWA II was to be kept intact their
employment policy; and accordingly as per the
photocopy of the Minutes dt. 16-3-1994 of the meeting
held between both the parties (the Unions RCMSs and
the Management) (Ext.M.3), the claim of the petitioners
for employment is not justified, as the NCWA IV was
enforced, to which the management was one of the
signatories, and accordingly as per the agreement, only on
completion of 15 years of service of the workmen, the
workman of the management becomes eligible for their
enrollment of his dependants; even on completion of 15
years of service of the deceased workman, his dependant
was not given employment unless his/her name is enrolled
in the Dependence Register of the Company; moreover the
NCWA related to employment provision particularly was
not applicable to the Company.
8. It has been submitted as per the written argument
by Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate-cum-Union
Representative for the female petitioner that in the face of
admission of the Management witness (MW1 Dinesh
Kr. Sharma) that the management was one of the signatories
to NCWA, but the management has failed to prove the
alleged settlement about the eligibility of workman to
enroll the name of his dependant in the Dependant Register
only on completion of his 15 years’ of service. By
underlining the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mohan Mahato Vs. M/s. Central Coal Fields
Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2007 (115) FLR 427 (SC) (DB), Mr.
Mukherjee has to submit that the N.C.W.A. (Here V) is a
settlement within the meaning of Sec. 18 (3) of the I.D. Act,
1947 which provides for appointment of dependants of
deceased employee working in Coal Mines. In that
settlement applied for appointment on compassionate
ground on the death of his father a Coal Mine Worker, who
died in harness. Appellant’s application in the first instance
was turned down on the ground of his minority. It was held
therein that turning down again of the appellant’s
application after his majority on the ground of same being
beyond six months’period of limination was not legally
justified, said period of limitation mentioned in circular dt.
12-12-1995 was not statutory and same was not part of the
original settlement, hence impugned judgement and order
of the High Court was held unsustainable, and was set
aside, directing to offer appointment to the appellant on a
suitable post within 8 months; and the appeal was allowed
(Paras 2 to 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 20); as such the petitioner
is alleged to be entitled to employemt in place of her
deceased husband worker under the Opp./Management.
9. In quick response to it, Mr. D. K. Verma, the
Learned Counsel for the Opp./Management has to contend
that the present employment on compassionate ground
under NCWA is not applicable to Tata Company which
has its own employment procedure approved by the
recognised union and the JBCCI, and that the Union has
not dealt with the case in terms of the reference, so the
female petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
10. On perusal and consideration of the materials as
adduced by both the parties, I find the facts as under :
(i) The Union for the petitioner has utterly failed to
bring relevant materials about the time of her
representation for employment as well as her due
identity for employment in place of her deceased
husband who expired in harness as alleged under
vague NCWA. Nothing brought as the records to
show when the application for compassionate
appointment was made expeditiously as the
circumstances warranted to tide over immediate
difficulties.
(ii) The Opp./Management of Tisco has its own
provision/procedure quite independant of the
NCWA, but subservent to the J.B.C.C.I.’s
instructions about the employment for dependant
of the deceased employee.
(iii) The petitioner could not get qualified for her
employment on the ground that her deceased
husband had completed only 13 years service less
then 15 years, the minimum requisite to her
enrolment for it, so her husband was quite ineligible
for endorsement of his dependant wife in the
Dependant Register of the Company, and the
petitioner being female also stood not qualified for
her employment as per the provision of the TISCO
Management as per letter dt. 7-2-1981 of the Joint
General secretary, the R.C.M.S. related to continue
the existing employment Rule being more favourable,
so to oversee the Implementation of NCWA II
(Ext.M.2) as well as per the minutes (itme 6) of the
meeting held between the Unions of RCMS and the
management on 10-02-94 at Jamadoba as per JMB/
303/002331 dt. March 16, 1994 (Ext.M.3).
11. In view of the present scanty facts of the
reference, the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid ruling being
quick different appeard to be inapplicable to the reference
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 16] 2013@dk£rd 25] 1935
6253
case, so the argument of Mr. D. Mukherjee seems not
plausible. Under this circumstances, it is hereby
ORDERED
Let the Award be and the same is passed that the
action of the management of Sijua Colliery of
M/s. TISCO in not providing employment to
Smt. Sukumari Devi W/o Late Jagdish Nonia, Ex-
Coal Dresser on compassionate ground, when her
husband died while in service, merely on the
technical ground taken by the management as just
to complete 15 years of service is quite justified and
legal as well. Hence she is not entitled to this
employment, as employment on compassionate
ground is merely a concession or exception to the
general appointment in public, and it is not a vested
right for it.
Let the copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to
the Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and
needful publication in the Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2365-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
71@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@98@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/1995)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
M/s. BCCL and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 15-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/98/1994-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I. D. Act
Reference No. 71 of 1995
Employer in relation to the management of Barora Area
No.1 of M/s. BCCL.
and
their workman.
Present : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the employers
:
None.
For the Workman
:
None.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, 3-9-2013
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/98/94-IR (C-I), dt. 21-6-1995,
the Central Government in the, Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the union is justified in demanding
revocation of penalty order dt. 20-4-92 Issued by the
management against Shri Murli Beldar, Electrical
Helper and also the payment of wages with other
benefits for the period from 4-7-89 to 28-8-90 ? If so,
to What relief the workman is entitled ?’’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The management counsel, and workman’s
representative appear. But subsequently, none appears on
behalf of the parties. Therefore, it is felt that there is No
Dispute between the parties. Hence a No Dispute Award is
passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2366-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
6254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
la[;k 4@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
21&10&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@29@2010&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 23-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/29/2010-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 04 of 2011
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
Jogidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their
workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
:
None
On behalf of the management
:
None
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th April, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/29/2010-IR (CM-I), dt. 24-1-2011.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Jogidih
Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Bhuneshwar
Mahato, M/Loader from the services of Company
from 23-5-06 is fair and justified ? if not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled ?’’
2. Neither any Representative for Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad, nor workman
Bhuneshwar Mahato appeared nor any written statement
filed on his behalf despite four Regd. notices which were
issued to the Secretary of the said Union on its address
noted in the Reference itself. Likewise none appeared for
the Management of Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL.
On perusal of the case record, it stands clear that the
case has been all long pending since 25-4-2011 for filing
written statement of the workman in the present case related
to an issue about the dismissal of the workman from the
service of the Company w.e.f. 23-5-2006. The Union
Representative as well as the workman by his conduct
appears to be uninterested in pursuing the case, as niether
the Union nor the workman responded to the any of the
four Regd. notices. Under these circumstances, proceeding
with the case for uncertainity is unwarranted. Hence the
case is closed as non-existent of the Industrial Dispute
and accordingly an order is passed as such.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2367-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
49@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@72@2008&vkbZ vkj (lh&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
M/s. BCCL and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 15-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/72/2008-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 16] 2013@dk£rd 25] 1935
6255
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I. D. Act 1947
Reference No. 49 of 2008
Employer in relation to the management of E. J. Area
Bhowra of M/s. BCCL.
AND
their workman.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the employers
: Sri U. N. Lal, Advocate
For the Workman
: Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, 4-9-2013
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/72/2008-IR (C-I), dt. 14-10-2008,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the management of E.J.
Area Bhowra of M/s. BCCL in denying payment of
Coalfied Allowance to the non-executives as paid to
the executives is justified and legal ?’’ (ii) if not, to
what reliefs are the concerned workmen of BCCL
entitled?’’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The management counsel, and workman’s union
appeared for some years. Finally the union secretary files
an application that there is no no dispute between the
parties. Hence a no dispute Award is passed. Communicate
to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2368-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
13@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&10&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@17@2008&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
M/s. BCCL and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 23-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/17/2008-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 13 of 2008
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL and their
workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
: Mr. S. C. Gaur, Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the management
: Mr. S. N. Ghosh, Ld. Adv.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th April, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/17/2008-IR (CM-I), dt. 28-1-2008.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of
Jayrampur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in superannuating
6256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Smt. Sobu Bourin, General Mazdoor w.e.f. 30-6-2006
is justified and legal ? if not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled ?’’
2. Mr. S. C. Gaur, the Ld. Advocate for the Rastriya
Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Dhanbad/Petitioner Smt. Sobu
Bourin is not present nor any witness for the evidence of
the petitioner produced despite three Regd. notices issued
to the Union on its address as noted in the Reference itself.
Mr. S. N. Ghosh, the Ld. Advocate for the management is
present.
From the perusal of the case record, it stands clear
that the case has been pending for the evidence of the
petitioner since 25-7-2012, for which three Regd. notices
were duly issued to the Union Representative for the
petitioner, even then neither the Union Representative nor
the petitioner responded to any of the Regd. notices of the
Tribunal. Thus it shows the conducts of the
Representative/Union and the petitioner, as it appears, that
they are not interested in contesting the case which is
related to an issue of superannuation of the petitioner as
General Mazdoor w.e.f. 30-6-2006.
In view of the aforesaid non-response of the Union
representative nor production of witness for the petitioner,
the case is closed and accordingly it is held that the
industrial dispute no longer exists; hence and award is
passed no dispute.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2369-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
21@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&10&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@101@2011&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL, PO : Sonardih and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
24-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/101/2011-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 21 of 2012
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
Katras Area of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
:
None
On behalf of the management
:
None
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th April, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/101/2011-IR (CM-I), dt. 14-3-2012.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Ena Fire
Project under Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL in not
regularizing/promoting Sh. Prakash Sengupta,
Foreman in Gr. B, w.e.f. 2000 and in Gr. A w.e.f. 2008 is
fair and justified ? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?’’
2. Neither any Representative for Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union, Dhanbad, nor workman Prakash Sengupta
appeared nor written statement on their behalf filed.
Likewise none appeared for the G.. M., Kustore Area of
M/s. BCCL.
Perused the case record, it is clear from it that the
case has been pending from the very beginning since
31-5-2012, for filing written statement on behalf of the
Union/workman in the present Reference relating to an
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 16] 2013@dk£rd 25] 1935
6257
issue of non-regularisation promotion of the said workman,
Foreman in Gr. B, w.e.f. 2000 and in Gr. A. w.e.f., 2008. Despite
four Regd. notices upto 1st Jan., 2013 to both the parties
on their addresses noted in the Reference itself, neither the
Union Representative nor the workman, in particular, took
care of it for their appearance and their liability of filing the
written statement of the workman in this case. The Union
Representative and workman Parkash Sengupta by their
conduct appeared to be not willing to proceed with the
case. Hence, the case is closed, as no Industrial Dispute
exists. Accordingly an Order is passed for non existence
of the Industrial Dispute as referred.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2370-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- ,e- ih-
Mh- vkbZ-] jkaph ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 103@93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
24&10&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@22@93&vkbZ vkj (lh&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/93)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
C M P D I, Ranchi and their workman, received by the
Central Government on 24-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/22/93-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 103 of 1993
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
CMPDI, Ranchi and their workmen.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : None
On behalf of the management : Mr. T. N. Choubey, Ld. Adv.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th March, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/22/93-IR (Coal-I), dt. 5./16-7-1993.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of M/s
Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd.,
Ranchi in terminating the services of S/Shri Dilip
Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Ram, Bijay Shankar Ojha,
Ramdeo Mahato, Suresh Mahato, Paras Nath
Mahato , Shiveshwar Mahato, Sukhdeo Mahato and
Khutuk Lehar, w.e.f. 1-7-1992 without paying them
notice pay in lieu of notice of one month and
retrenchment compensation after employing them for
more than one year continuously in violation of Sec.
25-F of I. D. Act, 1947 is justified ? If not, to what
relief the workmen are entitled ?.’’
2. Shown of unnecessary details in the larger written
statement with a lot of rulings referred beyond the ambit of
the pleading Rules, the case of the sponsoring union
Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union for workmen S/Shri Dilip
Kumar Singh & eight others is that the Central Mine
Planning and Design Institute Ltd., (to be referred as
CMPDI) having its Head Quarter at Ranchi is the employer
with its various subsidiary Units throughout India. It is
Industrial Establishment u/s 2(e) of the Industrial
Establishment (Standing Order) Act, 1946, and Sec. 2 (Ka)
of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is a body constituent
to and controlled by the Coal India Ltd. which has its second
subsidiaries including CMPDI under the Government of
India as its sole agency for management of entire Coal
Mining Industry and Coal Mines owned by the Central
Government after the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act
1973. The workmen related to Coal India Ltd. and its
subsidiaries including CMPDI are governed under the same
wage structure and service conditions determined by the
J.B.C.C.I strictly as per guide-lines issued by the
Government of India from time to time.
All the nine workers were initially posted in the
CMPDI, Hydrogeological Camp, Rajmahal Area at Lalmatia,
6258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
P.O. same district Godda after their respective direct
employment by the CMPDI for the jobs of perennial nature
incitantal to the main activity of the industry as mentioned
in the Annexure to their Written Statement (para 7 as well).
All the nine workmen were employed on Muster Roll, and
paid daily wages at the Company’s rate untill their illegal
retrenchment on 1-7-1992, though they all along remained
in their respective continuous and regular services for more
than five years since their employment (in the years1986-
1989). They got their wages as per National Coal wage
Agreement III, though depriving of their wage revision
and its benefits as per NCWA IV. Each of the workmen had
actually worked not less than 240 days in a year.
3. Further case of the Union concerned is that not
any breach of discipline or misconduct was ever on their
part, even then the workmen were abruptly but orally
terminated by the management of CMPDI w.e.f. 1-7-1992
without any reason still unknown to them. Their termination
of services in lack of its written or oral communication
amounts retrenchment to u/s 2(oo) of the I. D Act . The
employees being directly employed by their employer
CMPDI were workmen as defined u/s 2(5) of the act as also
under clause 2.10 of its Certified standing Order to which
they can not be classified as Apprentice, Badli or even
Casual. The undisclosure of their status by the management
is its unfair labour practice of their exploitation Besides
that their was no surplus age in the Department of the
CMPDI on 1-3-1993 for its Budget Estimate for 1993-94
detailed in para 76 of the written statement, and so the
termination of the workmen also stands beyond the point
of surplus age. Their retrenchment is illegal u/s 25 H of the
Act. Thus the action of the management of CMPDI , Ranchi,
in terminating them without a notice or payment of their
wages and retrenchment compensation after employing
them for more than one year continuously in violation of
Sec. 25 F and B of the Act was unconstitutional, unjustified
and grossly unfair, so is liable to set aside, and they should
be reinstated with full backwages.
No rejoinder filed by the Union to the Written
statement-rejoinder of the management in the case.
4. Whereas in challenge to it, the case of the CMPDI
Management with categorical denials is that the
management is a registered Company under the Bihar Shops
and Establishment Act 1953 with its Registration No. 13798/
Ranchi, and it has already applied for renewal of the
Certificate of Registration for the year 1993. The persons
in question, were never employed in any capacity rather
they were engaged on contractual basis. Hence they can
not assume the capacity of workmen of the Company. On
being engaged on contractual basis, they were paid for
their pro rata and quantum performed work, but not on the
basis of their attendances. so there was no question of
either any supervision or any relationship of employer-
employee or master-servant.
The establishment of the management is neither the
owner of any mine nor runs any coal mine nor produces
coal, coke or other derivatives as done in an ‘controlled
Industry’ notified by the Labour Ministry, Government of
India. Thus it does not come under the purview of the
Central Government as under the Industrial Dispute Act.
When the persons under the reference have been engaged
on contractual basis, their claim to be workmen of the
Company in lack of any thing on the record about their
employment can neither exist nor be acceptable. The
Certified Standing Order prior to or on and its existence
w.e.f. 7-8-91 containing the classification of workmen as (a)
Apprentice (b) Badli or substitute (c) casual (d) Permanent
(e) Probation and (f) Temporary does not provide any scope
for engagement of the persons on contractual basis to
assume the status of workmen the persons in issue are not
the workmen of the Company in any circumstances, rather
they are seeking employment with the CMPDIL.
5. Further case of the OP/Management is that the
CMPDIL being a Government Company under Sec. 617 of
the Companies act, has to abide by the provision of
Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) Act for selection from amongst the candidates
sponsored by the Employment Exchange in case of any
permanent vacancy. An absorption of any such
employment seekers in the Company who were exclusively
engaged on contractual basis, would be infringement of
the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 16 of the
Indian Constitution in matter of Equality before law and
Equality of Opportunity in Public employment. It is settled
law for regularisation merely on completion of 240 days of
service against the public interest, so it was directed for
employment based on registration with Employment
Exchange, and if qualified. As such the contractual persons
as contrasted with the regular and legally employed
employees of the Company can not claim for their
regularisation, as the latter work under the supervision
and control of the Company as per disciplinary rules of
their performance, but the former are beyond of it.
6. The OP/Management in its rejoinder has pleaded
that the JBCCI applies to the workmen employed in the
Coal India Ltd., its subsidiaries their wage structure and
service conditions.The persons in issue were not offered
any employment as alleged. Since they were not the
workmen of the Company, no question of any retrenchment
or of their continuous service arises even in view of their
contractual engagement.The persons were engaged on
contractual basis, and were paid their contractual payment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 16] 2013@dk£rd 25] 1935
6259
based on quantum of job, but. they, were never offered any
status of workmen as classified under the Certified standing
Order. Similarly,in view of their contractual workers, who
were off loaded with some miscellaneous work, no question
of the nature of their aforesaid contractual job as perennial,
regular incidental to or connected with the main activity of
the establishment of the Company arises, nor in respect of
any alleged unfair labour practice.The Rules 76,77,78 and
78B of the Contract Labour (R&A) Central Rules stipulate
the issuance of employment card, of service certificate
obtaining signature/thumb impression and issuance of
wage slip all by the contractor. In this case, every person
in issue, had virtually worked as an individual
contractor.The management nowhere worked as a
contractor for these individual contract labourers so no
licensing arises.The Contract Labour (R & A) Act is
applicable to the establishment where 20 or more workmen
are employed. There was niether any ‘Lay Off’ in lack of
employment nor any closure/lockout. There was termi-
nation of contractual engagement on completion of their
respective work. The Company maintains the seniority of
its workmen existing on its regular roll.
FINDING WITH REASONING
7. In this instant oldest case, I find that despite more
than reasonable and sufficient time, the sponsoring union
namely Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union failed to
produce, or to examine any witness for any of the
workmen Dilip Kumar Singh and eight others as noted in
the Schedule to the Reference in support of their case even
upto 13.2. 2002. But MWI A. K. Jain, the Sr. Hydrogeologist
-cum- Officer-incharge of the Management C. M. P. D. I. L.
Lalmatia Hydrogeological Camp, has been examined on
behalf of the management.The sponsoring union even
after giving ample opportunities did not appear for cross
examination for a long time, and at last the case came up for
the stage of hearing argument.
According to the statement of MWI A. K. Jain, the
concerned workmen were not the employees of the
management, rather they were deployed by the management
to work on contractual basis on need based as the
management used to engage for some allied works related
to drilling project and they were paid their wages on
vouchers based on-their job performance and on
contractual rate.The management witness has clearly
established the project, which was a time bound one, lasted
from 1984 to 1989, after which was permanently closed; as
such the demand of the workman was not justified. Under
these circumstances,it stands clear that the sponsoring
union could not make out the case of the workmen. whereas
the management has proved that the workmen Dilip Kumar
Singh and eight others were temporarily contractual labour
of the management for the drilling project which was
permanently closed after the completion of' the work in the
1989, and they were not the employees of' the management,
so their demand was not justified. Hence it is held that the
question :
"Whether the action of management of M/s. Central
Mine Planning an Design Institute Ltd Ranchi in
terminating the services of S/Shri Dilip Kumar Singh, Raj
Kumar Ram, Vijoy Shankar Ojha,Ramdeo Mahato, Suresh
Mahato, Paras Nath Mahato,Shiveshwar Mahato,Sukhdeo
Mahato and Khutuk Lehar w.e.f. 1-7-92 without paying
them notice pay in lieu of notice of one month and
retrenchment compensation after employing them for more
than one year continuously in violation of Sec.25-F of
I.D.Act,1947 as justified or unjustified does not arise,
because there were only contractua1 labourers
intermittently for temporary period. Therefore any of the
workmen is not entitled to any relief. And accordingly it is
awarded.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2371-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
24@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&10&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@106@2011&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 23-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/106/2011-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
6260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference No. 24 of 2011
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL and their
workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
:
None
On behalf of the management
:
None
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th March, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/106/2011-IR (CM-I), dt. 17-2-2012.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of ROCP
under Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL in not paying
Rs. 60,000 towards Life Cover Scheme amount as per
NCWA-VIII to Sri Kartik Bhuia, dependant son of
Late Kunti Bhuini is fair and justified ? To what relief
Sri Kartik Bhuia, dependant son of Late Kunti Bhuini
is entitled ?’’
2. Neither any Representative for the National Coal
Workers’ Congress, Hirapur, Dhanbad, nor petitioner Kartik
Bhuia, dependant son of Late Kunti Bhuini appeared nor
any written statement filed on his behalf. Likewise none
appeared for the management of Kustore Area of M/s.
BCCL.
From the perusal of the case record, it is clear that
the case has been pending from beginning for filing a written
statement on behalf of the petitioner, for which three
Regd. notices were issued to the General Secretary of the
aforesaid Union on his address noted in the Reference, yet
no response whatsoever from any of them. The Union
Representative and the petitioner Kartik Bhuia by their
conduct appeared to be unwilling to contest the case
related to the claim for the payment of certain amount of
money towards the Life Cover Scheme as per the NCWA-
VIII.
In view of the aforesaid situation, the case is
closed : accordingly an order of no industrial dispute
existent is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2372-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
254@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
24&10&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@286@2001&vkbZ vkj (lh&I))º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2372.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 254/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
of M/s. BCCL and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 24-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/286/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 254 of 2001
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
East Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
:
None
On behalf of the management
:
Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld.
Adv.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th March, 2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 16] 2013@dk£rd 25] 1935
6261
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/286/2001-IR (C-I), dt. 18-9-2001.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of East
Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing
Sri Raghu Das from the services of the company
w.e.f. 11-4-88 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled ?’’
2. No Union Representative nor workman Raghu
Das appeared, but Mr. D. K. Verma, the Learned Advocate
for the management is present yet no witness on behalf of
the management for evidence at the preliminary point has
been produced.
Perused the case record. It stands clear that the
Union Representative or the workman concerned appeared
to have already left to represent in this case since
27-4-2011, meanwhile it has been running for the evidence
of the management on preliminary point.
Under these circumstances of none representation
from the side of the Union Representative as well as the
workman, proceeding with the case for uncertainty is
unwarranted. The Union Representative and the workman
appeared to be not interested in contesting the case.
Hence, the case is closed : accordingly an order of no
industrial dispute existent is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 2373-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2, /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
296@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
24&10&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@340@2000&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 296/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24-10-2013.
[No. L-20012/340/2000-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 296 of 2001
Parties
: Employer in relation to the management of
Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL and
their workmen.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
:
None
On behalf of the management
:
Mr. U. N. Lal, Ld.
Adv.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th March, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/340/2000-IR (C-I), dt. 7-11-2001.
SCHEDULE
‘‘1. Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union for payment of LTC/ LLTC is proper and
justified? If not, to what relief the workmen
entitled ?’’
2. Whether the action of Sudamdih Coal Washery of
deducting wages from the salary of the concerned
workmen for the period January, 1991 to Sept., 1991
and not depositing the same in the account and not
depositing the same in Provident Fund Office and
paying the concerned workmen the wages is
justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman
entitled and what amount.
6262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 16, 2013/KARTIKA 25, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.Whether the action of the management of
Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s BCCL of not regularising
Rameshwar Dusad in pay Loader Category ‘C’ is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
entitled ?’’
2. No Union Representative nor any workman
Rameshwar Dusadh appeared nor any witness for the
evidence of the workman produced despite ample
opportunities for it and three Regd. notices having been
issued to the Regional Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union, Sudamdih Area, Dhanbad on his address noted in
the Reference. But Mr. U. N. Lal, the Ld. Advocate for the
management is present.
Perused the case record. It transpires that the case
has been pending for the evidence of the workman since
31-1-2006. The Union Representative and the workman
concerned by their own conduct appear to be uninterested
or unwilling to contest the case. Proceeding with the
present Reference for uncertainty is unwarranted.
Under these circumstances, the case is closed as
non existent of the Industrial Dispute ; accordingly an
Award of No Dispute is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.