okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;
¼ okf.kT; foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2733-—dsaæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj
fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr
fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ¼1963
dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] eSllZ baLiSDVksjsV xzhQFk bafM;k izkñfyñ 488] [kkutupd]
gfYn;k&721602] ftyk iwohZ fenukiqj] if'pe caxky dks Hkkjr
ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dkñvkñ la[;k 3975 rkjh[k
20 fnlacj 1965 vkSj dkñvkñ la[;k 3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlacj] 1965
ls mikc) vuqlwph esa Øe'k% fofufnZ"V [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa
¼lewg&1½ vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld] eSxuht v;Ldksa] ykSg eSxuht
ckDlkbZM vksj ¼lewg&2½ Økse v;Ld] mDr [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa
dk gfYn;k esa fu;kZr ls iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, bl vfèlwpuk esa
izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls 3 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds
v/khu ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
(i) ;g fd eSllZ baLiSDVksjsV xzhQFk bafM;k izkñ fyñ 488]
[kkutupd] gfYn;k&721602] ftyk iwohZ fenukiqj] if'pe caxky
[kfut vkSj v;Ld] lewg&1 ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds
v/khu fujh{k.k djus ds fy, muds }kjk vuqlfjr dh tkus okyh
fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh ijh{kk djus ds fy, fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn
}kjk bl fufeÙk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a iznku
djsxkA
(ii) ;g fd eSllZ baLiSDVksjsV xzhQFk bafM;k izkñ fyñ 488]
[kkutupd] gfYn;k&721602] ftyk iwohZ fenukiqj] if'pe caxky
bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa ,sls funs'kksa ls
vkc)dj gksxk tks funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr
fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk le; le; ij fn, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 4&6&2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O.2733.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises
M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private Limited, 488,
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- 52]
ubZ fnYyh, fnlEcj 22—fnlEcj 28] 2013] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 1—ikS"k 7] 1935
No. 52]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 22—DECEMBER 28, 2013, SATURDAY/PAUSA 1—PAUSA 7, 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)
5228 GI/2013
(7015)
7016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Khanjanchak, Haldia-721602, Distt. East Midnapore, West
Bengal, as an agency for a period of three years from the
date of publication of this notification, for the inspection
of Minerals and Ores (Group-I) namely, Iron ores,
Manganese ores, Ferro Manganese, Bauxite and Group II
Chrome ore, specified in the schedule annexed to the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce vide S.O. No. 3975, dated the 20th December,
1965 and S.O. No. 3978, dated the 20th December, 1965
respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores
at Haldia, subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(i) that M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private
Limited, 488, Khanjanchak, Haldia-721602, Dist. East
Midnapore, West Bengal, shall give adequate facilities to
the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in
this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed
by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the
Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules,
1965; and
(ii) that M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private
Limited, 488, Khanjanchak, Haldia-721602, Distt. East
Midnapore, West Bengal, in the performance of their
function under this notification shall be bound by such
directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control),
Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to
time.
[F.No. 4-6-2013-Export Inspection]
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2734-—dsaæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj
fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr
fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ¼1963
dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] eSllZ feujyl ySc~ lfoZlsl izkñ fyñ IykV lañ 25&8&141
esa fLFkr izFke ry] Fkkselu LVªhV] iqjkuk iksLV vkfQl ds fudV]
fo'kk[kkiÙkue&530001 dks Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky; dh
vf/klwpuk dkñ vkñ la[;k 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlacj] 1965 ls mikc)
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa ¼lewg&1½ vFkkZr~ ykSg
v;Ld] mDr [kftuksa vkSj v;Ldksa dk fo'kk[kkiÙkue esa fu;kZr ls
iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, bl vf/klwpuk esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls 3
o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu ,d vfHkdj.k ds
:i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
(i) ;g fd eSllZ feujyl ySc~ lfoZlsl izkñ fyñ IykV lañ
25&8&141 esa fLFkr izFke ry] Fkkselu LVªhV] iqjkuk iksLV vkfQl ds
fudV] fo'kk[kkiÙkue&530001 [kfut vkSj v;Ld] lewg&1
¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu fujh{k.k djus ds fy,
muds }kjk vuqlfjr dh tkus okyh fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh ijh{kk djus
ds fy, fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk bl fufeÙk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa
dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a iznku djsxkA
(ii) ;g fd eSllZ feujyl ySc~ lfoZlsl izkñ fyñ IykV lañ
25&8&141 esa fLFkr izFke ry] Fkkselu LVªhV] iqjkuk iksLV vkfQl ds
fudV] fo'kk[kkiÙkue&530001 bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa
ds ikyu esa ,sls funs'kksa ls vkc)dj gksxk tks funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj
DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk le; le; ij fn,
tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 4@3@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O.2734.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with
sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby
recognises M/s. Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd., located
at Plot No. 25-8-141, 1st Floor Thomson Street, Near Old
Post Office, Vishakhapatnam-530001, India, as an agency
for a period of three years from the date of publication of
this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection
of Minerals and Ores Group-I, namely, Iron Ores, specified
in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the
Government of India, in the Ministry of Commerce vide
S.O. Number. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to
export of the said minerals and ores at Vishakhapatnam,
subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(i) that M/s. Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd., located
at Plot No. 25-8-141, 1st Floor Thomson Street, Near Old
Post Office, Vishakhapatnam-530001, shall give adequate
facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection
Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection
followed by them in carrying out the inspection under rule
4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group-I (Inspection)
Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s. Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd., located
at Plot No. 25-8-141, 1st Floor Thomson Street, Near Old
Post Office, Vishakhapatnam-530001, in the performance
of their function under this notification shall be bound by
such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality
Control), may give in writing from time to time.
[F.No. 4/3/2013-Export Inspection]
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2735-—dsanzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj
fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr
fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ¼1963
dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] eSllZ ,slu ,aM daiuh] fo'okdey fcfYMax esa fLFkr]
f}rh; ry ¼fiNyk Hkkx½ cSbZdEiSMh] eSaxyksj&575019 dks Hkkjr
ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dkñvkñ la[;k 3975 rkjh[k
20 fnlacj] 1965 ls mikc) vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa
¼lewg&1½ vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld] eSxuht v;Ld mDr [kfutksa vkSj
v;Ldksa dk eSaxyksj esa fu;kZr ls iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7017
bl vf/klwpuk esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls 3 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy,
fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku
djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
¼i½ ;g fd eSllZ ,slu ,aM daiuh] fo'okdey fcfYMax esa
fLFkr] f}rh; ry ¼fiNyk Hkkx½ cSbZdEiSMh] eSaxyksj&575019 [kfut
vkSj v;Ld] lewg&1 ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu
fujh{k.k djus ds fy, muds }kjk vuqlfjr dh tkus okyh fujh{k.k dh
i)fr dh ijh{kk djus ds fy, fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk bl fufeÙk
ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a iznku djsxkA
¼ii½ ;g fd eSllZ ,slu ,aM daiuh fo'okdey fcfYMax esa
fLFkr] f}rh; ry ¼fiNyk Hkkx½ cSbZdEiSMh] eSaxyksj&575019 bl
vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa ,sls funs'kksa ls vkc)dj
gksxk tks funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k
ifj"kn }kjk le; le; ij fn, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 4@5@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O.2735.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with
sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby
recognises M/s. Essen & Co., located at Vishwakamal
Building, II Floor (Rear portion), Baikampady, Mangalore
575019, as an agency for a period of three years from the
date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette,
for the inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-I), namely,
Iron Ore and Manganese Ore, specified in the Schedule
annexed to the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Commerce vide S.O. number 3975 dated the
20th December, 1965, prior to export of said minerals and
ores at Mangalore, subject to the following conditions,
namely:—
(i) that M/s. Essen & Co., located at Vishwakamal
Building, II Floor (Rear portion), Baikampady, Mangalore-
575019 shall give adequate facilities to the officers
nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf
to examine the method of inspection followed by them in
carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of
Minerals and Ores-Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s. Essen & Co., located at Vishwakamal
Building, II Floor (Rear portion), Baikampady, Mangalore-
575019, in the performance of their function under this
notification shall be bound by such directions as the
Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection
Council may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/5/2013-Export Inspection]
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2736-—dsanzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k
vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963
¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ ,lñthñ,lñ bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] chñ,uñVhñ
dusD'ku fcfYMax] 28ch@1 ¼,lñihñ½] 28ch@2 ¼,lñihñ½] nwljh
eq[; lM+d] vEckrqj vkS|ksfxd ,sLVsV] vEckrqj] psUubZ dks Hkkjr
ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3975 rkjh[k
20 fnlacj] 1965 vkSj dkñvkñ la[;k 3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlacj]
1965 ls mikc) vuqlwph esa Øe'k% fofufnZ"V [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa
¼lewg&1½ vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld vkSj lewg&2 cSfjVsl] jsM vkWDlkbM
vkSj QSYMLikj] mDr [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa dk psUubZ] bukSj vkSj
fØ'kukirue esa fu;kZr ls iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, bl vf/klwpuk
esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls 3 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krks±
ds v/khu ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
¼i½ ;g fd eSllZ ,lñthñ,lñ bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM]
chñ,uñVhñ dusD'ku fcfYMax] 28ch@1 ¼,lñihñ½] 28ch@2 ¼,lñihñ½]
nwljh eq[; lM+d] vEckrqj vkS|ksfxd ,sLVsV] vEckrqj] psUubZ] [kfut
vkSj v;Ld] lewg&1 ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds vèhu
fujh{k.k djus ds fy, muds }kjk vuqlfjr dh tkus okyh fujh{k.k dh
i)fr dh ijh{kk djus ds fy, fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk bl fufeÙk
ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a iznku djsxkA
¼ii½ ;g fd eSllZ ,lñthñ,lñ bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM]
chñ,uñVhñ dusD'ku fcfYMax] 28ch@1 ¼,lñihñ½] 28ch@2 ¼,lñihñ½]
nwljh eq[; lM+d] vEckrqj vkS|ksfxd ,sLVsV] vEckrqj] psUubZ bl
vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa ,sls funs'kksa ls vkc)dj
gksxk tks funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k
ifj"kn }kjk le; le; ij fn, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 4@8@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 2736.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises
M/s. SGS India Private Limited, B.N.T. connection building,
28 B/1 (SP), 28 B/2 (SP), second main road, Ambattur
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, as an agency for a
period of three years from the date of publication of this
notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group I)
namely, Iron ore and Group II Barytes, red Oxide and
Feldspar, specified in the schedule annexed to the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December ,
1965, and S.O. 3978, dated the 20th December, 1965
respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores
at Chennai, Ennore and Krishnapatnam, subject to the
following conditions, namely:—
7018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) that M/s. SGS India Private Limited, B.N.T.
connection building, 28 B/1 (SP), 28 B/2 (SP), second main
Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, shall
give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the
Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the
method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the
inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores,
Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals
and Ores, Group-II (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s. SGS India Private Limited, B.N.T.
connection building, 28 B/1 (SP), 28 B/2 (SP), second main
Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, in
the performance of their function under this notification
shall be bound by such directions as the Director
(Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council
may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/8/2013-Export Inspection]
A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2737-— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}~kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk] o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ
1-
4650665
20131008
esllZ xksYMu fczM~t osfYMax ,yDVªksM~l
dkWcZu ,oa dkWcZu esaxuhl lajpuk
IS 814 : 2004
lañ 2658] ,y ,e MCY;w ¼vkj ,y ,e½ jksM]
bLikr dh /kkrq vkdZ osfYMax ds fy,
,l ,Q lañ 462@3] eqrqdoUMu iqnj]
vkofjr bySDVªksM
dks;EcÙkwj&641406
2-
4650766
20131008
esllZ oh&xkMZ baMLVªhl fyfeVsM
izsjd eksVj & ÅtkZ n{k] rhu Qst+]
IS 12615 : 2004
21@113] E] dkj;e iky;e jksM]
fLDojy dst
eSyeiV~Vh iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641062
3-
4651364
20131009
esllZ vEeu ,uUlhl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy
IS 14543 : 2004
lañ 119] iuSejrwj eq[; lM+d]
ty ds vykok½
rsyqUxqiky;e iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641039
4-
4651869
20131010
esllZ VsDLeks baMLVªwl ¼iEi fMfo'ku&II½
fuEetuh; iEilsV ds fy, eksVj
IS 9283 : 1995
4@133A] iUuheMS jksM]
dsñ oMenqjS] dks;EcÙkwj&641017
5-
4654067
20131017
esllZ ,Dok ¶yks
d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
IS 9079 : 2002
2@189&C] dkj;e iky;e jksM]
fctyh ds eksukslsV iEIl
eSyiiV~Vh iksLV]
dks;EcÙkwj&641062
6-
4654370
20131021
esllZ tqYQh ,Dok QkElZ
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543:2004
,l ,Q lañ 122@3] 4&37A] lhjkik;y;e]
feujy ty ds vykok
cksMhiky;e iksLV] endqdjS ¼ds jkLrs½]
dks;EcÙkwj&641105
7-
4657982
20131031
esllZ efgy bfjxs'ku flLVEl
flapkbZ miLdj & mRltZdh ikbi
IS 13488 : 2008
6@290] xksch eq[; lM+d]
i)fr;ka
vUuk uxj] lhukiqje xkao]
is#UnjS rkyqd] bZjksM&638057
8-
4658681
20131031
esllZ lh vkj eksVlZ izk;osV fyfeVsM
rhu Qst izsjd eksVj
IS 325 : 1996
79@2] nwljk ekyk] ds-lh-vkdsZM]
Vh-oh- lkeh jksM] vkj- ,l iqje]
dks;EcÙkwj&641002
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7019
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O.2737.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory)
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No. No.
Date
of the Party
Sec. Year
1.
4650665
20131008
M/s. Golden Bridge Welding Electrodes
Covered electrodes for manual
IS 814 : 2004
No. 2658, LMW (RLM) Road,
metal arc welding of carbon and
S.F. 462/3, Muthukavandan Pudur,
carbon maganese steel
Combatore-641406
2.
4650766
20131008
M/s. V-Guard Industries Ltd.
Induction Motors - Energy
IS 12615 : 2004
21/113E, Karayam Palayam Road,
Efficient, Three-phase, Squirrel
Mylampatti Post,
Cage
Coimbatore-641062
3.
4651364
20131009
M/s. Amman Agencies,
Packaged Drinking Water (other
IS 14543 : 2004
No. 119, Panaimarathur Main Road,
than Packaged Natural Mineral
Telungupalayam (P.O.)
Water)
Coimbatore-641039
4.
4651869
20131010
M/s. Texmo Industries (Pump Division-II)
Motors for Submersible
IS 9283 : 1995
4/133A, Pannimadai Road,
Pumpsets
K. Vadamadurai,
Coimbatore-641017
5.
4654067
20131017
M/s. Aqua Flow
Electric Monoset Pumps for
IS 9079 : 2002
2/189-C, Karayampalayam Road,
clear, cold water for
Mylampatti Post,
agricultural and water supply
Coimbatore-641 062
purposes
6.
4654370
20131021
M/s. Zulfi Aqua Farms
Package Drinking Water
IS 14543 : 2004
SF No. 122/3, 4/37A, Seerapalayam,
(other than Packaged Natural
Bodipalayam (P.O.), Madukkarai (Via),
Mineral Water)
Coimbatore-641105
7.
4657982
20131031
M/s. Mahil Irrigation System
Irrigation Equipment - Emitting
IS 13488 : 2008
6/290, Gobi Main Road,
Pipe Systems
Anna Nagar, Seenapuram Village,
Perundurai (Tk),
Erode-638 057
8.
4658681
20131031
M/s. CR Motors Private Limited
Three phase induction motors
IS 325 : 1996
79/2, II Floor, K.C. Arcade,
T.V. Samy Road, R.S. Puram,
Coimbatore-641 002
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2738-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%—
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr
jí gksus dh
lañ
lh ,e@,y &
oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
frfFk
vDrwcj 2013 & 'kwU;
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
7020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O.2738.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant Indian
Date of
No. CM/L-
Standard covered by the licence
Cancellation
cancelled/suspension
October 2013 - NIL
[No. CMD/13:13]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2739-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch ,l lh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31
vkWQ 2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@232@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2013
S.O. 2739.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2012) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BSC and their
workmen, received bythe Central Government on
09/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/232/2001-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(I) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Reference No. 31 of 2012
PARTIES
:
S/Shri Bablu Sah & three Others
Vs. M/s. BSC Company,
Mr. Vidhyasagar Choudhary-Prop.
Khaprajola, Pakur
APPEARANCES
:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. N.G. Arun, Rep. of the
workman/Union
workman
On behalf of the
:
Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
:
JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dhanbad, Dated, the 8th May, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(I)
(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/232/2001. I.R.(C-I) dt. 10-08-2001.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s. B.S.C. company Khapra Jola, Pakur in not paying
the full outstanding final dues to S/Shri Bablu Sah,
Azgar Seikh, Sanjay Raj Banshi, Bablu Raj Banshi
and Insan Seikh, is legal and justified? What relief
the workmen are entitled to?"
2. Neither the Representative for the General
Secretary, Quarry Worker's Union, Pakur appeared nor
written statement of the worker's S/Shri Bablu Sah, Azgar
Seikh, Sanjay Raj Banshi, Bablu Raj Banshi and Insan Seikh
filed. Likewise, non-appeared for M/s. B.S.C. Company Rep.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7021
by Mr. Vidyasagar Chaudhary, Prop., Khapra Jola, Pakur
appeared.
Perused the case record. It is quite clear from it that
three registered notices dt. 25.6.2012, 7.3.2013 and
17.4.2013 have been issued to the General Secretary of the
Union concerned and the management of the company
concerned on their respective addresses as noted in the
Reference. Even then, neither the Union Representative
concerned nor any of the aforesaid workmen responded to
their notices. The Union Representative and the workmen
concerned by their conduct appear to be quite uninterested
in pursuing the case for its finality. Under these
circumstances, the present Reference related to an issue of
non-payment of final dues to the said workmen is closed
as non existence of the Industrial Dispute.
Accodingly an order of non-existence of the
Industrial Dispute is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
————
ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2740-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 195
vkWQ 2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@261@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2013
S.O.2740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 195/
2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/261/2001-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.
Act. 1947
Ref. No. 195 of 2001
Employer in relation to the management of Putki Colliery,
P.B. Area, M/s. BCCL,
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
Sri S.N. Goswami, Advocate
State
:
JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated 13/8/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/261/20001-IR(CI), dated 13/09/
2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of P.B. Area,
BCCL in deputing as clay certridge Makers to Smt.
Panwa Kamin, wagon loader after completion of 20
years service and wages reduced is fair and justified?
If not, to what relief of demand of category-5 is
entitled? What order is expected in this regards?"
2. This case is received from the Ministry of labour
on 5-10-2001. After notice both parties appeared, the
Sponsoring Union/workman files their written statement
on 26.11.2001. the workman filed documents as per list,
examined himself and cross examined by the management.
The claim of the workman is she was appointed as wagon
loader and paid wages of category-IV and thereafter
category-V. But subsequently her service condition was
changed and she was allowed to work as clay cartridge
maker.
3. The management has not specifically denied that
the workman was not worked as wagon loader nor received
pay of category-IV and thereafter category V.
4. The management has not filed any document nor
adduce any evidence. Therefore the management to pay
the workman, her dues of category V, as if she worked as
wagon loader.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I hold that the action of the management of P.B. Area,
BCCL in deputing as clay cartridge Makers to Smt. Panwa
Kamin, wagon loader after completion of 20 years service
7022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and wages reduced is not fair and justified. Hence she is
entitled to category-V.
This is my Award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
————
ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2741-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 264
vkWQ 2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@449@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2013
S.O.2741.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 264/
2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
09-12-2013.
[No. L-20012/449/2001-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. 1947
Ref. No. 264 of 2001
Employer in relation to the management of Dakra
Colliery M/s. CCL.
AND
Their workmen.
APPEARANCES :
For the employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
Sri Trilochan Prasad, Concerned
Workman.
State
:
JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated 21-10-13
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/449/2001/IR(C-I) dt. 29.11.2001
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (I)
and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the union to provide
employment on compassionate ground to
Sri Trilochan Prasad, S/o Late Dukalu B.P. Helper as
per the provision 9.4.2 of NCWA is proper and
justified? If so, to what relief is the said dependent
entitled?"
2. This Case is received from the Ministry on
06.12.2001. During the pendency of the case Sponsoring
Union files a petition for withdrawing this reference. It is
felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence
"No dispute" award is passed. communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
————
ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2742-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95
of 2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&20012@497@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2013
S.O.2742.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2001
) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/497/2000-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7023
Reference: No. 95/2001
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D.
Act, 1947.
PARTIES: Employer in relation to the management of E.J.
Area, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT
: Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES:
For the employers : Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate
For the workman : None
State
:
JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated the 21st Oct. 2013
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/497/2000/IR (C-I) dated
29.03.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Kaya BCCL, E.J. area ke Prabandh Tantra Dawara
Sri Subodh Bauri miner/loader ko dated 2.1.96 se
barkhast kiya jana vidhiwat nayayochit awaym sahi
hai? Yadi nahi to karmkar kis rahat ke patara hai?'
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2743-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
03@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
03/2010) as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10.12.2013.
[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Award U/s. 21 of the L.S.A. Act 1987 & Amendment
Act, 1994 Saturday, the 20th day of July, 2013
PRESENT:
1. Sri G. Venkata Krishnaiah,
— Judicial Officer
B.A., B.L., Chairman,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-Cum-VI
Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Godavarikhani.
2. Sri D. Anjaiah,
— Member (Advocate)
3. Sri Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy, — Member
(Social Worker)
I.D. No. 3 of 2010
On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-cum-
VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani.
BETWEEN
Adicherla Chandraiah, S/o Venkati, Ex. General Mazdoor,
E.C. No. 0984995, Aged about 40 years,
C/o Sri B. Amarender Rao, Advocate,
Raghupathinagar (Ganganagar),
P.O. Godavarikhani, Distt. Karimnagar (A.P.) ....Petitioner
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., GDK-6A Incline,
P.O. Godavarikhani, Distt. Karimnagar (A.P.).
2. The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam Area-II,
P.O. Godavarikhani, Distt. Karimnagar (A.P.)
3. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
P.O. Kothagudem, Distt: Khammam (A.P.).
..........Respondents.
7024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CLAIM
This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming
on 20-07-2013 for settlement before the LOK ADALAT in
the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his Counsel
Sri B. Amarender Rao, and the Authorized Officer/Law
Officer of the Respondent/Management Sri K.A. Rajendra
Rao, Law Manager, Ramagundam Region.
After hearing and after considering the
representation of both parties and in view of the settlement
arrived between the parties and on the basis of the said
settlement, passed the following:—
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987
The petitioner having agreed to the detailed
proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1 (a) to (e)
and 2, the contents of which are read over and explained to
him in his language and agreed by him by signing the
proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award), the Respondent is
directed to take him back to duty forthwith as BADLI COAL
FILLER.
2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties
and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21 (2) of the
LSA Act, 1987.
3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing
the respondent company to implement the award within
30 days from the date of publication of this award by the
Government of India.
4. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel
have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the
presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench. LTI of
A. Chandraiah.
Sd/-
Petitioner/Workman
Authorised Officer For The
Respondent Company
(K.A. RAJENDRA RAO)
Sd/-
Counsel For The Petitioner
Presiding Officer Of Lok Adalat
Sd/-
SRI D. ANJAIAH, Advocate,
LOK ADALAT MEMBER.
Sd/-
SRI. Dr. G. BHAGAVAN REDDY,
MEMBER (SOCIAL WORKER)
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
I.D. No. 3 of 2010
Proposals of the Management:
In order to have speedy and effective settlement of
the cases before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Management of
Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth
the following proposals:
1. Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before
this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the
following conditions:
a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have
put in at least 100 musters per year in any of the
two years of the preceding 5 years of the
dismissal.
b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment
as Badli Coal Filler without back wages and
without continuity of services subject to medical
fitness by Colliery Medical Officer.
c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment
will be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal
filling where underground coal filling is available
and need not be the same place where the
petitioner - workman was last employed.
d. The petitioner-workman will be on observation
for one year and has to put in minimum mandatory
20 musters every month, and reviewed once in
every 3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event
of any short fall of Attendance during the 3 months
period his services will be terminated automatically
without any further notice and enquiry.
e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine
accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is
taken at Company Hospitals and remains in
company sick rolls, will be deemed as attendance
during the trial period.
2. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment
will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, days of rest,
holidays etc., for appointment afresh.
The Hon'ble Members may kindly take note of the
above and pass consent award under Section 21 of LSA
Act, 1987.
Sd/-
Authorised Officer for
the Respondent Company
(K.A. RAJENDRA RAO)
Sd. illegible
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7025
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2744.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&22013@1@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O.2744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
26/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 10.12.2013.
[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Award u/s. 21 of the L.S.A. Act 1987 & Amendment Act,
1994 Saturday, the 20th day of July, 2013
PRESENT
1. Sri G. Venkata Krishnaiah,
— Judicial Officer
B.A., B.L.,
Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-Cum-VI
Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Godavarikhani.
2. Sri D. Anjaiah,
— Member (Advocate)
3. Sri Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy, — Member (Social
Worker)
I.D. No. 26 of 2008
On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-cum-
VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani.
Between:—
Gadepu Srinivas, S/o Rajanarsu, Ex. Coal Filler,
E.C. No. 2108838, Aged about 36 years,
Qr. No. ST2-370, Bus Stand Colony, P.O. Godavarikhani,
Mandal Ramagundam, Dist. Karimnagar (A.P.)
........Petitioner
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., RK-8 Incline,
P.O. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A.P.).
2. The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Srirampur Area,
P.O. Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad (A.P.)
3. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
P.O. Kothagudem, District: Khammam (A.P.).
..........Respondents.
CLAIM
This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming
on 20-07-2013 for settlement before the Lok Adalat
in the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his
Counsel Sri B. Amarender Rao, and the Authorized
Officer/Law Officer of the Respondent/Management
Sri P. Venkateswarlu, Personnel Manager, Srirampur Area.
After hearing and after considering the
representation of both parties and in view of the settlement
arrived between the parties and on the basis of the said
settlement, passed the following:—
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987
The petitioner having agreed to the detailed
proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1 (a) to (e)
and 2, the contents of which are read over and explained to
him in his language and agreed by him by signing the
proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award), the Respondent is
directed to take him back to duty forthwith as Badli Coal
Filler.
2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties
and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21 (2) of the
LSA Act, 1987.
3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing
the respondent company to implement the award within
30 days from the date of publication of this award by the
Government of India.
4. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel
have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the
presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.
Sd/-
Petitioner/Workman
Authorised Officer for the
Respondent Company
(P. VENKATESHWARALU)
Sd/-
Counsel For The Petitioner
Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat
Sd/-
Sri D. Anjaiah, Advocate,
Lok Adalat Member
Sd/- G. Srinivas
7026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sd/-
Sri Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,
Member (Social Worker)
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
I.D. No. 26 of 2008
PROPOSALS OF THE MANAGEMENT:
In order to have speedy and effective settlement of
the cases before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Management of
Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth
the following proposals:
1. Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before
this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the
following conditions:
a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have put
in at least 100 musters per year in any of the two
years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal.
b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment as
Badli Coal Filler without back wages and without
continuity of services subject to medical fitness by
Colliery Medical Officer.
c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment will
be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal filling
where underground coal filling is available and need
not be the same place where the petitioner—
workman was last employed.
d. The petitioner—workman will be on observation
for one year and has to put in minimum mandatory
20 musters every month, and reviewed once in every
3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event of any
short fall of Attendance during the 3 months period
his services will be terminated automatically without
any further notice and enquiry.
e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine
accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is taken
at Company Hospitals and remains in company sick
rolls, will be deemed as attendance during the trial
period.
2. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment
will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, days of rest,
holidays etc., for appointment afresh.
The Hon'ble Members may kindly take note of the
above and pass consent award under Section 21 of LSA
Act, 1987.
Sd/-
Authorised Officer for the
Respondent Company
(P. VENKATESHWARALU)
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2745.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O.2745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,, (Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
41/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 10.12.2013.
[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Award U/S. 21 Of The L.S.A. Act 1987 & Amendment
Act, 1994 Saturday, The 20th Day of July, 2013
PRESENT
1. Sri G. Venkata Krishnaiah,
— Judicial Officer
B.A., B.L.,
Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-Cum-VI
Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Godavarikhani.
2. Sri D. Anjaiah,
— Member (Advocate)
3. Sri Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy — Member (Social
Worker)
I.D. No. 41 of 2008
On the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-cum-
VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani.
BETWEEN
Gummula Venkati, S/o. Ramulu, Ex. Coal Filler,
E.C. No. 0903193, Aged about 43 years,
Village & Post Malyalapalli, Mandal Ramagundam,
Dist. Karimnagar (A.P.)
....Petitioner
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7027
AND
1. The Colliery Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,
GDK-6B Incline, PO. Godavarikhani,
Dist. Karimnagar (A.P.)
2. The Chief General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam Area-I,
PO. Godavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar (A.P.)
3. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
P.O.: Kothagudem, District: Khammam (A.P.)
...Respondents.
CLAIM
This case is referred by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Godavarikhani at the request of both parties and coming
on 20-07-2013 for settlement before the LOK ADALAT in
the presence of the Petitioner/Workman and his Counsel
Smt. Ch. Shailaja, and the Authorized Officer/Law Officer
of the Respondent/Management Sri K. Prakasha Babu, Dy.
General Manager (Personnel), Ramagundam Area-I.
After hearing and after considering the
representation of both parties and in view of the settlement
arrived between the parties and on the basis of the said
settlement, passed the following:—
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE
L.A.S. ACT, 1987
The petitioner having agreed to the detailed
proposals of the Management shown in Clause 1 (a) to (e)
and 2, the contents of which are read over the explained to
him in his language and agreed by him by signing the
proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award), the Respondent is
directed to take him back to duty forthwith as Badli Coal
Filler.
2. This Award is final and binding on all the parties
and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21(2) of the
LSA Act, 1987.
3. Hence, the award is passed accordingly directing
the respondent company to implement the award within
30 days from the date of publication of this award by the
Government of India.
4. In agreement of the above the parties/counsel have
affixed their signatures/thumb impressions. In the presence
of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.
Sd/-
Sd/-
K. Prakash Babu
Petitioner/Workman
Authorised Officer for the
Respondent Company
Sd/-
Sd/-
Counsel for the Petitioner
Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat
Sd/-
Sri. D. Anjaiah, Advocate,
Lok Adalat Member.
Sd/-
Sri. Dr. G. Bhagavan Reddy,
Member (Social Worker)
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH FOR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
I.D. NO. 41 OF 2008
Proposals of the Management:
In order to have speedy and effective settlement of
the cases before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Management of
Singareni Collieries Company Limited agrees to put forth
the following proposals:
1. Review of pending absenteeism cases filed before
this Tribunal on or before 31-03-2011 subject to the
following conditions:
a. The dismissed petitioner-workman should have put
in at least 100 musters per year in any of the two
years of the prceding 5 years of the dismissal.
b. Management agrees to offer fresh appointment as
Badli Coal Filler without back wages and without
continuity of services subject to medical fitness by
Colliery Medical Officer.
c. Irrespective of earlier designations appointment will
be offered as Badli Coal Filler afresh on coal filling
where underground coal filling is available and need
not be the same place where the petition-workman
was last employed.
d. The petitioner-workman will be on observation for
one year and has to put in minimum mandatory
20 musters every month and reviewed once in every
3 months on Coal Filling only. In the event of any
short fall of Attendance during the 3 months period
his services will be terminated automatically without
any further notice and enquiry.
e. Any forced absenteeism on account of mine
accidents/natural disease, provided treatment is taken
at Company Hospitals and remains in company sick
rolls, will be deemed as attendance during the trial
period.
7028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment
will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, days of rest,
holidays etc., for appointment afresh.
The Hon'ble Members may kindly take not of the
above and pass consent award under Section 21 of LSA
Act, 1987.
1. Sd/-ft
Sd/-
2. Sd/-ft
K. Prakash Babu
Authorised Officer for
The Respondent Company
————
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2746.—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 07@2004½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@336@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 07/2004 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of FCI and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10.12.2013.
[No. L-22012/336/2000-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. 07/2004161/2001
Ref. No. L-22012/336/2000-IR(CM-II) dated: 23.12.2003
BETWEEN
The State Secretary
Bharitya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh
5/6, Habibullah Estate
Lucknow-226001
(Espousing cause of Shri Pratap Singh)
AND
The Sr. Regional Manager
Food Corporation of India
5/6, Habibullah Estate
Lucknow-226001.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-40012/87/2001-IR(DU)
dated: 11.09.2001 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:
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in not granting selection grade
from 1992 to Sh. Pratap Singh and imposing penalty
vide order dated 7.7.1999 were legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that
the workman, Pratap Singh was appointed on 03.05.71 as
Assistant Grade-III (Depot) and was promoted in April,
1972 as Assistant Grade-II (d) and thereafter further
promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I (D) in December,
1980. It is alleged that the workman was entitled for selection
grade after completion of 12 year's service in a grade i.e.
after completing 12 year's service in Assistant Grade-I (D)
in December, 1992; but the management did not grant the
same to the workman. Further, it is submitted by the
workman's union that the workman as issued a charge sheet
dated 28.12.98 for alleged shortage/excess of stock in the
stacks; and thereafter, was Penalized vide impugned order
dated 07.7.99 without considering his reply. Accordingly,
the workman's union has prayed that the management of
FCI be directed to grant selection grade to the workman
and set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.99.
4. The management of the FCI has disputed the claim
of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it
has submitted that the workman was granted selection
grade against the panel year 1993; and thereafter, the same
was withdrawn due to recasting of seniority of AG I (D) as
per court order. It is further submitted that the workman
was charge sheeted for his misconduct and after conducting
the formal inquiry and considering all the material on record
i.e. evidence, inquiry report and reply of the charged official
etc. the penalty order dated 07.07.99 was issued. It is
submitted by the management that the impugned order
dated 07.07.99 is in accordance with the principals of natural
justice; and there is nothing illegal in it. Accordingly, the
management of the FCI has prayed that the claim of the
3. Sd/-ft
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7029
workman's union be rejected without any relief to the
workman concerned.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder;
wherein it has not brought any new fact apart from reiterating
the averments already made by him in the statement of
claim.
6. The workman has filed photocopy of certain
documents vide list dated 04.02.2005, paper No. C-17; and
in rebuttal the management has filed none. The workman's
union examined the workman in support of its case on
08.12.2005; but the workman did not turn up for his cross-
examination in spite of ample opportunities being given to
him and ultimately it was presumed vide order dated
07.05.2007 that the workman does not want to get cross-
examined and accordingly, 11.07.2007 was fixed for
management's evidence. When the management of FCI did
not produce any evidence on several dates, accordingly, it
was presumed vide order dated 08.06.2009 that the
management does not want to lead any evidence and the
case was fixed for arguments on 10.08.2009. The parties
filed their respective written arguments in support of their
cases; but did not forwarded any oral argument are
remaining absent for long time; accordingly, the case was
reserved for award, keeping in view the long pendency of
the case and reluctance of the parties to contest their case.
7. It was the case of the workman's union that the
management of the FCI did not grant the selection grade to
the workman after completion of 12 year's service in a grade;
and further that it illegally penalized the workman by
issuing impugned order dated 07.07.99 without complying
with the settled principles of natural justice. The workman
has filed photocopy of certain documents in support of his
case; and has tried to prove them through the evidence of
the workman; but since the workman did not turn up for his
cross-examination, the evidence forwarded by the
workman's union become futile. Thus, the version of the
workman's union stands unproved.
8. Per contra, the management of the FCI has disputed
the claim of the workman's union with pleading that the
thought the selection was granted to the workman; but the
same was withdrawn consequent to recasting of seniority
of AG-I (D) as per directions of the Court. Further, it is also
the case of the management that the impugned dated
07.07.99 was issued after due consideration of the reply of
the workman and affording him all reasonable opportunity
to defend himself; accordingly, there is no infirmity it and
the same is liable to be upheld along the order dated 07.07.99.
9. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking
jurisdiction of the court, must fail. In the present case burden
was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to
challenge the validity of the action of the management in
granting the selection grade to the workman and that of
order dated 07.07.99 of the management; whereby the
workman was imposed penalty; and to prove that the action
of the management in not granting him selection grade and
issuing the impugned order dated 07.07.99 was illegal. It
was the case of the workman's union that the workman was
not granted selection grade and was penalized by the
impugned order dated 07.07.99. This claim has been denied
by the management; therefore, it was for the workman's
union to lead evidence to show that alleged injustice was
done to the workman by the management.
10. In M/s. Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union ,
Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others 2008 (118) FLR 1164,
Hon'ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex
Court in Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.
1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), V.K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court
and others 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), Airtech Private Limited v.
State of U.P. and others 1984 (49) FLR 38 and (Alld.)
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others 1996 (74)
FLR 2004; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:
"that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf
of the workman the reference is bound to be answered
by the Court against the workman. In such a situation
it is not necessary for the employers to lead any
evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the
party making the allegation. The test would be, who
would fail if no evidence is led."
11. In the present case the workman's union failed to
prove its case as the workman did not turn up for his cross-
examination; and accordingly his evidence could not taken
into account. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It
was obligatory on the part of workman's union to come
forward with the case that the workman had illegally been
denied with the selection grade and the impugned order
dated 07.07.99 was issued without observing the due
procedures of natural justice; but the workman's union
failed to forward any evidence in support of its claim, as its
witness did not turn up for cross-examination before this
Tribunal. There is no reliable material for recording findings
that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the
action of the management of FCI in not granting selection
grade from 1992 to the workman and imposing penalty vide
order dated 07.07.99 was either illegal or unjustified.
12. Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is
adjudicated against the workman's union; and as such, I
come to the conclusion that the workman, Pratap Singh is
not entitled to any of the relief(s) claimed.
13. Award as above.
Lucknow
Ist October, 2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
7030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2747.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ , vkbZ
,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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2012½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@177@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.06/2012 of
the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Atlanta Infrastructure
Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 10/12/2013.
[No. L-22012/177/2011-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT : Shri J. Srivastava,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 6/2012
Date of Passing Order-31st January, 2013
BETWEEN
M/s. Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd.,
101, Shree Ambasanti Chambers, Opp: Hotel
Leela, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East,
Mumbai-400 059.
.... Ist Party-Management.
AND
Shri Mahendra Samal,
At. Chandrasekharpur, Po, Neulapoi,
PS: Gandia, Dhenkanal.
... 2nd Party-Workman.
APPEARANCES:
None
.....
For the Ist Party-Management.
None
.....
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
Case taken up today, None of the parties is present.
The 2nd Party-workman has to file the statement of claim.
One year's time has elapsed and several notices to the 2nd
Party-workman were issued through ordinary as well as
registered post, but he has not responded to any of the
notices and has not filed any statement of claim. Hence it is
no use to keep the case pending for long. The 2nd Party-
workman has either settled the dispute with the management
amicably or he may not be interested in prosecuting the
case any further. Hence no dispute award is to be passed
in the case. Accordingly no dispute award is passed. The
reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2748-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lh lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O.2748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
39/2011) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the employees in relation to the management SCCL
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 10/12/2013.
[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT AT GODAVARIKHANI.
PRESENT: Sri G. V. Krishnaiah, B.A., B.L.,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 39 of 2011
Tuesday, the 10th day of September, 2013
BETWEEN
Zadi Bheemaiah, S/o. Zadi Lasmaiah,
aged about 47 years, Occ: Ex. Coal Filler,
R/o. Gollapalli Mandal Nennela Post,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7031
Mylaram, Dist., Adilabad.
— Petitioner.
AND
(1) The Colliery Manager,
Vth Incline, Ramakrishnapur,
Dist. Adilabad.
(2) The General Manager,
Srirampur Projects, Srirampur,
Post: Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad.
(3) The Managing Director,
SC Company Ltd., Administration,
Kothagudem, Dist. Khammam.
— Respondents.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the
petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate, for the
Respondents; and having been heard and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the
following:—
A W A R D
This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 praying this court to set aside the
dismissal order dt. 15-02-2003 and to direct the respondent
No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity
of service, all other consequential attendant benefits and
full back wages.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:—
The petitioner is appointed as an employee on
1-3-1987 as a Badli Filler by GP Rao, Managing Director,
SC company Ltd., Kothagudem. The petitioner
discharged his duties to the fullest satisfaction of
superior till upto removal from service and the services
of petitioner are governed by various standing orders
of company. The petitioner put in 16 years of service in
the company and the petitioner was while working with
respondent No. 1, was affected with Neuro problem and
the company declared the petitioner as unfit for further
service and terminated the service of petitioner from
company.
3. The respondent without conducting any enquiry
and without issuing any charge sheet and charge memo,
terminated the services of the petitioner vide proc.,No. RKP/
PKI/P/2001/602, dt. 15-2-2003 by Colliery Manager,
RK.5 and this is nothing but termination simplicitor and
not with termination stigma and the respondent completely
contravened the provisions of Sec. 25 F of I.D. Act.
4. The petitioner was not treated properly in
company hospital and the petitioner has become mentally
retrograded and derailed and for his recovery the
petitioner underwent treatment in Singareni Hospitals
Karimnagar and Sanjeevini Diagnostics and also NIMS,
Hyderabad and after taking treatment in all hospitals from
2003 to 2010, the petitioner has become perfectly well and
the respondent never provided any monthly maintenance
to his wife and victimized the petitioner under the guise
of termination. Therefore the petitioner prays this court
to set aside the dismissal order dt. 15-02-2003 and to direct
the respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner into
service with continuity of service, all other consequential
attendant benefits and full back wages.
5. The respondent No. 2 filed his counter denying
all the allegations in the petition putting the petitioner to
strict proof of all those allegations. The Ist respondent
filed a memo adopting the counter filed by R-2.
6. The brief averments of counter of R-2 are that
the respondents' company is a Government Company
incorporated under the provisions of Company's Act. 1956
for carrying out the business of winning and selling the
coal and since the coal mining industry is a central subject,
the appropriate Government for this respondent/
management is Central Government. As per Sec. 7(A)(1)
of I.D. Act, the appropriate Government may by
notification in the official gazette constitutes one or more
Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of Industrial
Disputes relating to any matter whether specified in the
2nd or 3rd schedule and for performing such other
functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. And
that the Central Government established an Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29-12-2000
for adjudication of Industrial Disputes and the petitioner
ought to have approached the said Tribunal for the
redressal of grievances if any. But he conveniently
avoided to file his petition before the Tribunal established
by the Central Government for the reasons best known
to him and the petition is not maintainable under law and
the same may be dismissed on this ground alone. The
dispute is barred by limitation as per Sec. 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010. The petitioner
was dismissed from the services of the company vide letter
dt. 13-2-2003 w.e.f., 19-2-2003. The petitioner kept quiet
for all these years and filed this I.D., after a lapse of 8
years which is barred by limitation. As such, the ID is
liable to be dismissed in limini and the court may decide
the limitation proceedings as a preliminary issue before
proceeding with the trial.
7. The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on
19-4-1987 and later promoted as Coal Filler from 1-7-1990.
The petitioner is required to put in (190) minimum musters
per year. The petitioner was not attending for his duties
regularly and as he had put up (98) musters during 2001, he
was issued charge sheet dt. 25-2-2002 for habitual
absenteeism. He was given counseling on 16-4-2002 to
improve his attendance. As he failed to improve his
attendance, enquiry notice was issued. The petitioner
submitted his explanation to the charge sheet stating that
7032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
due to domestic problems ill health of his wife and
subsequent ill-health for himself, he failed to attend for his
duties without any leave and assured the company that he
will be regular in future. As the explanation is not
satisfactory, enquiry notice dt. 18-9-2002 was issued
advising him to attend the enquiry on 1-10-2002. As he
failed to attend the enquiry on 1-10-2002 inspite of receipt
of the notice, he was advised to attend the enquiry on
12-11-2002. The petitioner attended the enquiry on
12-11-2002, he was given fair opportunity to participate in
the enquiry and to cross examine the management witness
but the petitioner did not cross examine the management
witness and stated that he was absent for duty on the
dates mentioned in the charge sheet due to health problems.
He admitted that he was absent without any leave. The
petitioner did not report at respondent company hospital
for his ill-health nor produced any documentary proof
during the enquiry, for the charge sheet period. Copy of
the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner vide letter dt.
21-12-2002 and the petitioner submitted his representation
dt. 31-12-2002 admitting his absents and requested to take
him for duty as he was absent due to ill-health. The charges
leveled against the petitioner are proved and as there are
no extenuating circumstances to award lesser punishment
than dismissal, the petitioner was dismissed vide letter dt.
13-2-2003 w.e.f., 19-2-2003.
8. The respondent company is doing the business of
winning and selling of coal by employing about 68,000
persons. If the employees habitually abstained/absconded
from their duties, the required production/planned
production targets will not be achieved resulting in huge
losses to the respondents’ company by way of penalties
from the customers for non supply of required quantity of
coal as per fuel supply agreement with them. To avoid this
contingencies, the respondent company incorporated the
absenteeism as one of the acts of misconduct which is
approved by the Central Government in accordance with
the procedure laid down in the Industrial Employment
(Standing orders) Act, 1946. The petitioner failed to exhaust
the appeal remedy and filed the present petition before this
court. The petitioner is concealing all the above facts filed
this petition for reinstatement into employment with back
wages, with continuity of service etc., Therefore prays to
dismiss the petition in the ends of justice. Hence, the
respondent company suffers irreparable loss.
9. Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-12 are marked on behalf of the
respondents and no documents are marked on behalf of
the petitioner.
10. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on
record.
11. Both parties filed written arguments.
12. Now the point for consideration is:—
(1) Whether the present petition is maintainable before
this Tribunal?
(2) To what extent the alleged misconduct on the part of
the petitioner was made out in the domestic enquiry
and whether the punishment of dismissal of the
petitioner is justified?"
13. The petitioner filed Memo on 14-11-2011 praying
this court to decide the dispute U/Sec. 11-A of Industrial
Disputes Act. As such, there is no need to decide the
validity of domestic enquiry in this case as the counsel for
the petitioner conceded the same and requested this court
to decide the matter U/Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
14. POINT NO. 1:
It is the case of the respondents that the respondents
company incorporated under the provisions of Company's
Act 1956 for carrying out the business and selling the coal
and since the coal mining industry is a Central subject, the
appropriate Government for this respondents/management
is Central Government and that as per Sec. 7A(1) of I.D.
Act, the appropriate Government by may its notification
the official gazette constitute one or more industrial
tribunals for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to
any matter whether specified in the 2nd or 3rd schedule
and for performing such other functions as may be
assigned to them under this Act. The respondents further
submitted in their counter the Central Government
established an industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at
Hyderabad on 29-12-2000 for adjudication of Industrial
disputes and the petitioner ought to have approached the
said tribunal for redressal of grievances if any. The dispute
is barred by limitation as per Sec. 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Amendment Act, 2010. The petitioner was
dismissed from the services of the company vide letter dt.
13-2-2003 w.e.f., 19-2-2003. The petitioner kept quiet for all
these years and filed this I.D., after a lapse of 8 years which
is barred by limitation. As such, the ID is liable to be
dismissed in limini and the court may decide the limitation
proceedings as a preliminary issue before proceeding with
the trial.
15. "Appropriate Government is described U/
Sec.2-A of the I.D. Act, 1947". According to Sec. 2-A(1) of
the above Act, the Appropriate Government by notification
in the official gazette constitutes one or more Industrial
Tribunals for adjudication of Industrial Disputes relating
to any matter whether specified in 2nd or 3rd schedule. So,
according to the above two provisions of law, this Tribunal
is established. Admittedly, the petition filed by the petitioner
is an Industrial Dispute.
16. In a case reported in 1998(5) ALD-16 (D.B.) in a
writ petition between U. Chinnappa Vrs., Cotton Corporation
of India and others; the Division Bench of our High Court
held—"We will assume that in so far as the dismissed or
retrenched workman is able to approach the Labour Court
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7033
straight-away, the power of the Central Government to
make a reference of the dispute may be whittled down
protanto and in that sense there is a conflict or repugnancy
with sub-section (2) of Section 2(A) and Section 10(1) r/
w sub-section (1) of Section 2-A and Section 3 of the Act.
Even then, the Presidential assent given under Article
254(2) makes the State law prevail over the provisions of
the Central law to the extent of repugnancy". It also further
observed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2-A(2) is
not confined to workmen employed in Industrial
undertakings of State Government and it applies also to
workmen employed in Industrial undertakings of State
Government and it applies also to workmen engaged in
Central Government undertakings.
17. If the plea of the respondent is considered in the
light of the above case law, it falls to the ground, because,
Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 applies both to the workmen
employed in Industrial undertakings of State Government
and also to the workmen engaged in Central Government
undertakings.
18. In other words, it can be said it is for the workman
to approach U/Sec.2A(2) of I.D. Act, either to the Industrial
Tribunals having Central jurisdiction and also the Tribunals
having State jurisdiction. The petitioner was dismissed
from service by order dt. 13-2-2003 i.e., much prior to the
Amendment Act, 2010 came into force. This amendment
has no retrospective effect. The petitioner's case is not
covered by the Amendment Act, as such the I.D., is
maintainable before this court.
19. In view of the above, I hold that this Tribunal is
having jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute on
hand and the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.
The point is answered accordingly.
20. POINT NO. 2:
Since the validity of domestic enquiry is not disputed
by the petitioner, now it is to be seen to what extent the
alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner was made
out in the domestic enquiry and whether the punishment
of dismissal of the petitioner is justified.
21. The petitioner has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence. On behalf of the respondents,
Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-12 are marked. Ex.M-1 is charge sheet
issued to the petitioner. In this charge sheet, the period
of absence of the petitioner from January, 2001 to
December, 2001 were furnished in a tabular form and the
petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation to
the charge. Ex.M-2 is the undertaking given by the
petitioner after counselling. He assured the respondent
that he will put in not less than (20) musters in every
month from 1-4-2002 to 30-6-2002. Ex.M-3 is the
explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge
sheet. In this, he admitted that he absented for duty as
mentioned in the charge sheet and it is correct. Due to
domestic problems only, he has not attended to duty on
the dates mentioned in the charge sheet. He prayed to
excuse him for this time and consider his case
sympathetically. The enquiry proceedings are marked as
Ex.M-7. Sri P. Mallaiah, Office Superintendent (PO) and P.
Prasada Rao, Clerk were examined on behalf of the
respondent. They deposed in support of the charges.
The petitioner did not avail the opportunity of cross
examine the above management witnesses. Before the
enquiry officer the petitioner deposed that he absented
to duty during the year 2001 on the days mentioned in
the charge sheet without any leave. He deposed that
because of ill-health he absented for duty. But the
petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show
that he was imparted any medical treatment during the
charge sheet period. The enquiry report is marked as Ex.M-
8. The enquiry officer concluded that in view of the
evidence of the management witnesses and in view of
the voluntary admission of the petitioner, the charge
leveled against the petitioner stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The representation of the petitioner
on the enquiry report is marked as Ex.M-11. In this also
the petitioner admitted that the charge leveled against
him in the charge sheet are proved in the enquiry. He
pleaded that due to sudden change of his ill-health and
his wife’s health problems, he could not attend to duty.
He assured that he will be very careful in future in his
duties and he will not repeat the same. The order of
dismissal is marked as Ex.M-12.
22. From the statements of the departmental
witnesses before the enquiry officer, is very clear that the
petitioner has not put in required musters during the year
2001. He has not filed any piece of document to substantiate
his ill-health and of his wife. So, from the evidence produced
before the enquiry officer, it is clearly established that the
petitioner without obtaining prior sanction of leave or
without any reasonable cause absented for his duties and
put up only 98 musters attendance during the year 2001
and that he was in the habit of absenting from duties
frequently. But to consider the punishment awarded to the
petitioner whether it is proportionate to the charges proved
against the petitioner or not, admittedly there are no
documents filed by the respondent to show that the
petitioner is habituated to absent to his duties repeatedly.
Further the attendance particulars of the petitioner during
the previous years from 1998 to 2001 are as under:—
(1) 1998
—
160 musters.
(2) 1999
—
215 musters.
(3) 2000
—
191 musters.
(4) 2001
—
98 musters.
So, it can be rightly said this is the first time in the
year 2001, the petitioner was not regular in his duties. The
respondent has not filed the S.R., of the petitioner to show
7034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that the petitioner was inflicted with any previous
punishments. In these circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion, that dismissal of the petitioner from service for
the first misconduct, is not proportionate to the charge
proved against him for the first time in his service. Therefore,
I hold that dismissal of the petitioner from service is not
justified.
23. In the light of above foregoing discussion, I hold
that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved and
the punishment of dismissing the petitioner from service is
not justified and not in proportionate to the charge proved
against him. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
the punishment of dismissal needs modification to that of
reinstatement as Coal Filler “afresh”, so as to do justice to
the petitioner since this is the first irregularity/misconduct
committed by him. The point is answered accordingly.
24. In the result, the order of dismissal dt. 13-02-2003
is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner into service as a “Fresh” Coal Filler. The
petitioner is not entitled to any back wages. The past service
rendered by the petitioner from 1987 to 2003 shall be counted
only for the purpose of gratuity and other retirement
benefits.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of September,
2013.
G.V. KRISHNAIAH,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:—
For Management:—
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:—
-Nil-
For Management:—
Ex.M-1
Dt. 25-02-2002
Office copy of charge sheet with Ack,
Ex.M-2
Dt.
—
Undertaking letter given by the
petitioner after counseling.
Ex.M-3
Dt. 06-05-2002
Reply to the charge sheet
Ex.M-4
Dt. 18-09-2002
Enquiry notice O/c
Ex.M-5
Dt. 18-10-2002
Enquiry notice O/c
Ex.M-6
Dt. 05-11-2002
Ack. card
Ex.M-7
Dt. 12-11-2002
Enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-8
Dt. 27-11-2002
Enquiry report.
Ex.M-9
Dt. 21-12-2002
Show cause notice O/c
Ex.M-10 Dt. 26-12-2002
Ack., to the show cause notice.
Ex.M-11 Dt. 31-12-2002
Representation of the petitioner
Ex.M-12 Dt. 13-02-2003
Dismissal order O/c
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2749.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u,e,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@192@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 65/2002)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
disputes between the management of National
Metallurgical Laboratory, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 10/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/192/2001-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)
(2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 65 of 2002
Employers in relation to the management of National
Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT:
—
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
—
None
For the workman
—
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State—Jharkhand
Industry—Science & Technology
Dated 30.10.2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7035
AWARD
By Order No. L-442012/192/2001-IR (CM-II), dated
10/06/2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of National
Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur in terminating
Sh. A.K. De instead of regularising his service is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled
to?”
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 21.06.2002. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, the workman files their written statement on
06.08.2002. The management files their written statement
on 20.12.2002. The workman filed his affidavit evidence,
which remained unchallenged.
3. The short point involved in the case is as to whether
the workman was a continuous workman under the
management, and as to whether has completed 240 days
continuous, as a workman to be regularised in his post.
4. The workman submitted, that though he worked
continuously the management showing paper work of
intermittent i.e. break up service, illegally terminated him.
5. On the other hand from the documents filed on
behalf of the management, it is seen that, the appointment
was purely temporary i.e. purely contractual, after each six
months, there is break of service and fresh appointment is
made after two to three days, after each term of appointment.
Even accepting the submission and affidavit that the
workman has been working continuously almost all the
documents filed by the management is against the workman.
6. Even the appointment letter of the workman vide
letter No. 8-NML(25)/93-E-1 dated 10.09.96 does not support
him. It is pertinent to extract the terms of appointment in
verbation for appreciation.
Sub: Offer for engagement as DTP operator.
“With reference to your request dated 26.06.96, you
are hereby intimated that the Director, National
Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur has been
pleased to offer you on contract basis to work on a
purely temporary basis as a DTP operator on
consolidated amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three
thousand only) per month on the following terms
and condition:
1. It is not an offer of appointment in CSIR temporary
or otherwise. It is a contractual engagement on purely
temporary basis. It would, therefore, not confer and
right/claim implicit or explicit for your consideration
for regularisation/absorption against any CSIR post.
2. Your engagement on contract is for a specific period
of six months which may be extended or curtailed at
the discretion of the Director, National Metallurgical
Laboratory.
3. The contact of engagement can be terminated at any
time without assigning any reason thereof.
Any matter not specifically stated herein shall be
determined by the Director National Metallurgical
Laboratory, Jamshedpur, whose decision shall be
final and binding on both the parties to the contract.
If you are willing to accept the engagement on these
terms and conditions, you may please communicate
your acceptance within a week from the date of receipt
of this latter while intimating possible date of your
reporting for duty.
Sd/-
(A. MAJUMDAR)
Controller of Administration
7. In view of the above state of affairs and facts and
circumstances of this case it is seen that the workman is a
purely temporary workman posted on short term basis. In
the result hold that the action of the management of National
Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur in terminating Shri
A.K. De instead of regularizing his service is legel and
justified. The workman can not be regularised in his present
post. Hence the workman is not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2750.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua± 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@186@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.29/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
disputes between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/186/2003-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
7036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT: Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Reference No. 29 of 2004.
PARTIES:
The Vice President,
Mazdoor Sangathan Samittee, Angrpathar Colliery,
Dhanbad
Vs.
Gen. Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
Kusunda, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/ Mr. S.N. Goswami,
Union:
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the
Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld.Advocate
Management:
State: JHARKHAND
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th Oct., 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
186/2003-I.R.(C-I) dt. 14.01.2004
SCHEDULE
“Whether not giving an employment on
compassionate ground by the management of
Kusunda Area, BCCL to Shri Santosh Chauhan, the
dependent son of Ex-workman Smt. Dulia Kamin as
provision of NCWA-VI is just and legal. If not, then
what relief is the applicant entitled to?”
2. The case of petitioner Santosh Chanhan, the
dependent son of Ex-workman Dulia Kamin in the written
statement filed in the reference raised by the Mazdoor
Sangthan Samiti, Angarpathar Colliery is that the deceased
workman Dulia Kamin was a permanent employee as wagon
loader of Kusunda Colliery under Kudunda Area-VI of
M/s. BCCL, having Pers. No. 0291 3747 and CMPF
A/c No. DHN/17/157, but she died in harness on 18.08.1998
during her employment, leaving the petitioner as her only
son, who had submitted his application in the prescribed
Form on 22.09.1999 along with other documents for his
employment as per clause 10.4.2. of the NCWA-II. After
consideration of the matter, his application was kept on a
Live Roster as per provision under clause 9.5.0(iii) of
N.C.W.A.-VI related to providing an employment to the
dependent at the maturity of 18 years. The petitioner as
quite a dependent son of the workman had put several
representations before the management for his employment
on compassionate ground to tide over his crisis of the
family, but the management delayed it. Besides there is no
time schedule for the application. Rather procedure is the
dependent to be considered for employment should be
physically fit, not more than 35 years and suitable for
employment. The petitioner, the dependent son of the
deceased employee, is aged about 20 years, quite physically
fit and suitable for employment in place of his deceased
mother in the colliery as per the provision of NCWA-I to V
with retrospective effect 1.7.1996. He is legally entitled to
the employment. But the management without considering
the provision under clause 9.3.2. read with clause 9.4.0 (iii)
of NCWA-VI regretted the case of the petitioner. The action
of the management in not providing him employment on
his maturity of 18 years is illegal and against the principle
of natural justice.
3. The petitioner in his rejoinder (not filed by the
Union concerned) has categorically denied the allegations
of the O.P./Management, stating that despite several
representations by the Union as well as the workman, but
of no effect, the Industrial Dispute was raised consideration
for it. As per the Service Records of the Management she
died on 19.08.1998. The petitioner is the only dependent
son of the workman. He was a minor at the time of his
mother’s demise in harness.
4. Whereas with specific denials, the case of the O.P.
management is that the industrial dispute was raised by
the Vice President, Mazdoor Sangathan Samittee before
the A.L.C.(C), Dhanbad-V. Smt. Dulia Kamin was working
in Kusunda Colliery, and died on 19.08.1998, while her son
petitioner Santosh Chauhan was a minor below 15 years
old, so he was not entitled to get an employment as per
provision of the NCWA, then prevelant at the relevant
time. After due consideration of the matter by the
management, the employment of the petitioner was
regretted as per management’s letter dt 11.1.2002 as
communicated through the letter dt. 23/26.9.2002 of the
Project Officer, Kusunda. The I.D. on fully explaining the
aforesaid facts in the conciliation proceeding ended in
failure, and then F.O.C. as per the report dt. 28.07.2003 was
sent by the Conciliation Officer to the Government. The
provision was prevalent at that point of time for providing
an employment to the male dependent having age of 15
years or above or attaining 18 years; his name was being
kept on a Live Roster for providing an employment on
attaining the age of 18 years; but in the instant case, the
claimant was below the age of 15 years, so his case was
regretted by the competent authority as per policy of the
company; thus he is not entitled to any relief.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7037
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder specifically
denying the allegations of the petitioner has alleged that
there has been no delay on the part of the management as
soon as the application was filed by the petitioner.
FINDING WITH REASONS
6. In the instant reference, WWI Santosh Chauhan,
the petitioner himself as per affidavited chief and MWI
Ghanshyam Pd. Sinha, the Welfare Inspector, Kusunda
Area, for the O.P./Management have been respectively
examined.
Mr. S.N. Goswami, the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner argues that late Dulia Kamin was undisputedly a
permanent woman employee working as Shavel Operator
under Kusunda Area, and she died on 19.08.1998 in
harness; when the petitioner, her dependent son, submitted
the Application Form with required documents to the
management for his employment as per provision clause
9.3.2. of the NCWA-VI, the management refused his
employment on the ground of his being below 15 years at
the time of mother’s death. Mr. Goswami, the Ld. Counsel
for the father further submits that petitioner Santosh
Chauhan as WWI has established his date of birth as
01.01.1982 as per version of his mother according to which
he was 16 years on 19.08.1998. This plea of Mr. Goswami
being not based on pleading is unacceptable. The petitioner
appears to be himself uncertain what his age was at the
time of his mother’s death in harness. He has not come
with his clean hands to get justice over the matter of his
compassionate employment.
Whereas the contention of Mr. U.N. Lal, the Learned
Advocate for the O.P./Management as per the statement
of MWI Ghanshyam Pd. Sinha, the Welfare Inspector, for
the O.P./Management is that the petitioner was a Minor
below 15 years as per the provision of NCWA in vogue at
the time of his mother’s death on 19.08.1998, his application
for employment was regretted by the Competent Authority
as also communicated to him as per the official letters (Ext.
2 series), and the same fact was stated in the reply (Ext.M3)
in the I.D. No. 1/2003 before the A.L.C©, Dhanbad. But this
argument of Mr. Lal is also untenable, for the reason that
the NCWA-VI effective from 01.07.1996 which covers the
death of the petitioner’s mother in harness at the relevant
date postulates under its cause 9.5.0.(iii) as such:
“If no employment has been offered and the male
dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and
above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and
would be provided employment commensurate with
his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of
18 years...” is also accepted by the management
witness.
But in the instant case, there is complete failure of
the petitioner to establish his exact age at the time of his
Mother’s death, he can not be held successful for the claim
of his employment on compassionate ground.
In result, it is hereby:
ORDERED
That the Award be and the same is passed that the
action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
in not giving an employment Shri Santosh Chauhan, the
dependent son of Ex-workman Dulia Kamin as per provision
of the NCWA VI is just and legal. The applicant is not
entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2751-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 299@1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@313@1995&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O..2751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 299/
1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/12/
2013.
[No. L-20012/313/1995-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. 299 of 1999.
PARTIES:
Sri Baijnath Sao, Ex.-Employee of Giddi, Mandu, Hazaribagh
Vs Project Officer, Gidi ‘C’ Colliery of M/s CCL, Hazaribag.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the
Mr. S.N. Goswami Ld.
workmen/Union:
Advocate
On behalf of the Management:
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
7038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th Oct., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
313/95-IR(C-I) dt. 04.10.1999
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Gidi ‘C’
Colliery in not allowing of Shri Baijnath Sao, workman,
to rejoin the Service on the basis of the date of birth
claimed by him is just and fair? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from what date?”
2. The case of workman Baijnath Sao is that he was a
permanent workman at Gidi ‘C’ Colliery since 01.07.1959.
At the time of his appointment, though he had declared his
age as 18.08.1939, the management illegally and arbitrarily
recorded his age as 18.08.1932. His elder brother Sri Karju
Sao, also an employee of CCL had his date of birth as
3.7.1938. At the issuance of a Service Except by the
Management on 6.6.1987, it bore his date of birth (DOB) as
18.08.1932 and just at the side also written as 18.08.1939.
The workman returned the service except saying his DOBs
as 18.08.1939, which was also assured by the management
to maintain it in all his service records. Meanwhile, the
workman represented to the management for providing an
employment to his dependent son, as he was too unable to
work efficiently. On his referene to the Medical Board as
per letter dt. 30.05.1992 of the management, when he twice,
thrice as per the management letters dt. 29.08.1992 and
24.09.92 respectively reappeared before it for determination
of his age and Medical Certificate, but neither the Medical
Board took cognizance of it nor any report of it was given
to him. Meanwhile the management suddenly issued him a
letter proposing for his superannuation w.e.f. 30.10.1993.
The workman immediately seriously protested it as illegal
termination of his service in the garb of superannuation.
The age of his elder brother, the voter list and the records
as brought to the notice of the management show his factual
date of birth as 18.08.1939 also. The Civil suit filed by him
on the wrong advice of the workman was at last dismissed
ultra vires its jurisdiction. Consequent upon the industrial
dispute referred by the ALC©, Hazaribagh having been
unreasonably rejected by the Appropriate government, the
ID. as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna in the
CWJC 621/1980(R) referred for an adjudication. The action
of the management in letting the workman join his duty on
the basis of his birth date and in terminating his service in
the garb of superannuation are illegal, unjustified and
against the rules of natural justice.
No rejoinder could be filed on behalf of the workman.
3. Whereas the contra case of the O.P./Management
with specific denials is that the present reference is
unmaintainable, as no employer-employee relationship
exists between the management and the workman, and it is
not an industrial dispute u/s 2K of the I.D. Act, 1947. The
workman working as Mazdoor Cat.II at Giddi “C” colliery
on his superannuation retired from the service of the
Company w.e.f. 31.10.1993. Thereafter he was given his all
retrial benefits on his application. After his retirement, the
industrial dispute regarding his birth date was raised in the
year 1995. His date of birth as 31.10.1933 has been and it
was recorded as 18th August, 1932 as per the Service record.
At the issuance of the Service Excerpt to the workman in
the year 1987, he raised a dispute to it, alleging his date of
birth (DOB) as 18.08.1939 without any documentary proof.
As per the Implementation Instruction (I.I.) No. 76, he was
referred to the Area Medical Board/Age Committee, which
assessed his age 55 years as on 31.10.1988 after his medical
examination, and it was informed on 22.02.1989. His date of
birth was corrected in place of 18.08.1932 in the Service
excerpt. Thus his retirement accordingly w.e.f. 31.10.1993
is legal and justified.
4. The O.P./Managements in its rejoinder has
categorically, denied all the allegations of the workman
and stated that the management after due consideration
had referred the workman to the Apex Medical Board, which
assessed his above noted age, and it was duly
communicated to him.
FINDINGS WITH REASONS
5. In the case, WWI Dhani Saw, son of the deceased
workman Baijnath Sao on affidavited statement on behalf
of the Union, and MWI Janardhan Singh, Sr. Clerk of Giddy
Colliery of the O.P./Management have been respectively
examined.
Shri Dhani Sao, the son of the workman due to his
death on 03.12.2010 during the pendency of the case, has
been substituted in his place as per the Order No. 26 dt.
21.09.2011 of the Tribunal.
Mr. S.N. Goswami, the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner as per his written argument submits that at the
time of initial appointment of Late workman Baijnath Sao
on 01.07.1959, his date of birth (DOB) was recorded as
18.08.1939 at the time of his joining, but the management
illegally arbitrarily recorded his date of birth 18.08.1932
instead of his said Date of birth; the copy of the Service
Excerpt supplied to the workman, an illiterate person, on
6.6.1987 mentioned his date of birth as 18.08.1932, as well
as 18.08.1939 written at the side; then the workman
requested for necessary correction of it, at his
representation, them management after considering it set
up the Apex Medical Board before whom the workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7039
twice appeared for assessment of his date of birth, which
could not be, nor any report of it was supplied to him.
Further argued on his behalf that as per the Notice/Letter
of the management, the age of the workman was allegedly
determined at 55 years as on 31.10.1988, the birth date of
the workman was unjustly corrected as 31.10.1933 and
thereafter, the issuance of Notice of retirement to him w.e.f.
31.10.1993 being prematurely was illegal and unfair; but
unfortunately, the workman breathed his last on 03.12.2010
during the pendency of the case, though his claim was
justifed.
4. Whereas the contention of Mr. D.K. Verma, the
Learned Counsel for the O.P./Management is that the
reference itself is unmaintainable, as it has been filed after
the natural retirement of the workman; moreover in case of
variation in the service records about the workman’s date
of birth in the present reference, the appearance of the
workman before the Apex Medical Board constituted for
the assessment of his age as per the Implementation
Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA is indisputable; and
accordingly on the assessment of his age 55 years as on
31.10.1988 by the Medical Board as per the Management’s
later dt. 22.2.1989 which appeared to be communicated to
the workman (Ex. M.3), his Date of Birth came to 31.10.1933,
and the date of birth of the workman was corrected in place
of previous Date of birth 18.8.1932 in his Service Sheet
(Ext. M.1), and accordingly to which, his superannuation
from service on 3.10.1993 was just as per the Notice of
retirement dt. 22.4.1993 of the Management (Ext. M.4).
5. On the perusal of the materials on the case, I find
in the face of Receipt of the Medical Report by the workman
under his LTI as communicated by the Management’s letter
dt. 22.2.1989 about his medically determined age, the
allegation of Late deceased workman not to have got it is
untenable. His superannuation on 31.10.1993 was quite
just and proper as per his corrected date of birth 31.10.1993
in his Service Sheet. The argument of Mr. Goswami, Learned
Advocate for the petitioner seems not plausible. Hence, it
is hereby, in the terms of the reference:
ORDERED
That the award be and the same is passed that the
action of the management of “Gidi C” Colliery in not
allowing Late Baijnath Sao, the workman to rejoin the
service on the basis of date of birth claimed by him is quite
just and fair. Hence, the Late workman, if were alive, would
not have any entitlement to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2752-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@38@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2008 )
of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Sijua Area of M/s.
BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/38/2008-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. 31 of 2008
PARTIES :
The Joint General Secretary,
Bahujan Mazdoor Union, Dhansar, Dhanbad
Vs.
Gen. Manager, Sijua Area, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union:
Mr. R.R. Ram, Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management:
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th Sept., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
38/2008-IR (CM-I) dt. 28.05.2008.
7040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Loyabad
Coke Plant of M/s BCCL in denying subsistence
allowance to Sh. Yadunandan Dusadh, Security
Guard for the period from 5.9.2004 to 12.9.2004 and
from 21.6.2004 to 4.7.2004, is legal and justified?
(ii) To what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2. Mr. R.R. Ram, the Ld. Advocate-cum-Joint General
Secretary Bahujan Mazdoor Union, Dhansar, Dhanbad
(Jharkhand) and Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the
management are present, but no rejoinder nor documents
filed on behalf of the Union/workman.
By filing a petition on behalf of the Union/workman
Yadunandan Dusadh, the Security Guard, Mr. R.R. Ram,
the Ld. Advocate for the Union/workman submits for
closure of the case and passing ‘No Award Dispute’ on the
ground that the workman has already retired from his
service, so he does not want to contest it further. A copy of
it also served upon Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the
O.P./Management.
In view of the aforesaid peitition, I find the present
reference related to an issue about a denial to the
subsistence allowance to the workman as Security Guard
for the period from 5.9.2004 to 12.9.2004 and from 21.6.2004
to 4.7.2004 is closed as ‘No Industrial Dispute’, because
the workman has retired already, and is no longer interested
in pursuing the case. Hence, it is passed an order as non
existence of the Industrial Dispute.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2753-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|kfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@96@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2007)
of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/96/2006-IR(CM-I)]
M.K.SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. 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. 03 of 2007
PARTIES:
Employer in relation to the management
of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen.
APPEARANCES:On behalf of the workman Mr. S.C. Gaur,
Ld. Adv. on bealf of the Management:
Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Adv.
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dhanbad, Dated the 14th 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-20012/96/
2006-IR(CM-I) dt. 24.01.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Dhansar
Industry Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing
employment to Smt. Sanju Devi dependent wife of
Late Satyandra Paswan, justified & legal? If not, to
what relief is the said dependent of the workman
entitled?"
2. The case of petitioner Shrimati Sanju Devi as
sponsored by the National Colliery Workers' Congress,
Chiragora, Dhanbad, is that she is the dependent wife of
Late workman Satyandra Paswan who was appointed a
permanent employee by M/s. B.C.C.L. at Dhansar Industry
Colliery on 2.1.1997. But he expired on 31.12.2001 for his
illness at the BCCL's Central Hospital, Dhanbad by leaving
his aforesaid wife alone to mourn. After collecting all the
relevant papers from different authorities of District
Administration she filed the paper to the M/s BCCL for her
self employment, but the management concerned on
8.5.2005 regretted her employment as baseless and not
inconfirmity to the employment provision of the National
Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA), that the NCWA stipulates
employment to one dependant of the deceased employed
within 30 days of filling such papers to the Coal Company.
The petitioner for employment was hardly 23 years while
filing of her all relevant documents, being fully dependant
and living with her husband deceased at the time of his
death. She is entitled to self employment under the provision
of the NCWA, and the employer's action in denying her
employment is illegal and unjustified.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7041
3. The Union concerned in its rejoinder for the petitioner
has categorically denied the allegation of the Opp./
Management, and stated that the N.C.W.A. has no
provision for limitation or anything belated for filing papers
for employment. Moreover the paper is of 6.1.09 contrasted
with the demise of the employee is 2001 would be clarified
by the Court ruling. BCCL is no authority over it. Nothing
was communicated. The High Court of Jharkhand and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the circular of M/s Coal
India issued by CCL regarding the limitation of 18 months
for seeking employment. The allegation of existence of two
wives, out of them one Ram Rati Devi of the deceased
workman was never raised during conciliation nor in the
terms of the reference, so it is fabricated.
The both circulars dated 6.1.2004 and 06.01.2009 of the
Company as referred are self contradicting.
4. Whereas the Opp./Management in its written
statement has admitted the status of the deceased workman
Satyendra Paswan as Ex-SDL Mazdoor and a permanent
employee of Dhansar Colliery since his appointment on
9.4.1997 and he expired on 31.12.2001. But petitioner
Shrimati Sanju Devi submitted the proposal for employment
on compassionate ground on 5.1.2005 after 3 years from
the date of his death. The spirit of providing of employment
on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to
the family of the deceased. In view of the fact, in order to
avoid hardship and harassement, the competent authority
of B.C.C.L. as per the order No. BCCL/PA-VI/2004/
1195-1270 dated 6.1.2009 has determined the time limit that
no application for compassionate employment will be
entertainable beyond 18 months from the date of daceased
employee. Hence the Competent Authority regretted her
application for compassionate employment being belated
was unentertainable. The management can not wait for a
long period for giving employment on a later date contrary
to the existing circular/instruction of the Company. At this
point 10 years have already elapsed. It is also alleged that
the scrutiny of the application revealed that late deceased
workmen had two wives, namely petitioner Sanju and
Shrimati Ramrati Devi, as such it created legal complications
in matter of employment.
5. In its rejoinder, the Opp./Management has specifically
denied, the allegations of the petitioner, and stated that as
per the provision of NCWA-II implemented under social
Security of an employee out of the tri-partite agreement
between the management and Unions, the claimant should
file an application for employment before the management
within 2(two) months from the date of death of the deceased,
but in this case, it was filed after 3 years against the NCWA
provision. Further, it is alleged that the Coal Companies
under the NCWA should make their own procedure for
implementation of the provision, and accordingly the
management as per the said order dt. 6.1.2004 fixed a time
limit of 18 months for such applications but beyond which
it is unentertainable. Therefore the claim of the petitioner
was rightly rejected by the Competent Authority as a belate
case.
Finding with Reasoning
6. In this reference, WWI Sanju Devi, the petitioner
herself for the Union concerned and MWI Ghanshyam Pd.
Sinha, the Welfare Inspector for the management have been
examined.
In this reference, these is indisputable fact about the
death of workman Satyandra Paswan in harness on
31.12.2001 as per the Original Certificate of his death issued
by the Birth-Death Registrar Seraidhela Gram Panchayat
(Ext. W.1) ; he was appointed on 9.4.1997 and S.DL. Labourer
at Dhansar Colliery (of M/s BCCL). His wife petitioner Sanju
Devi is illiterate who had applied on 5.1.2005 to the O.P./
Management for her employment in place of her husband
(her application Ext. M. 1). But her application for
employment was refused as per the copy of the
OP/Management's letter (dt. 25/31.1.05-Ext. W.2). The OP/
Management had submitted its reply (7/8.2.2006-Ext. W.3)
in the Industrial Dispute for her employment before the
ALC(C). The petitioner (WWI) claimed to have submitted
her complete application along with the relevant documents
to the management, as it took time in preparation of the
documents for it. But the Opp./Management as per the
statement fo MWI Ghanshyam Prasad Sinha the Welfare
Inspector, has to contend that since the petitioner had
filed her petition for her employment after four years of the
death of her husband which was beyond 18 months limit
for it by a dependent as per the circular of the management
dt. 6.1.2004 (Ext. M.2 with objection). The plea of the
OP/Management about the existence of two wives, namely
Sanju Devi (petitioner) and second Ramrati Devi is
untenable, as it is contrary to the earlier reply of the
Management (Ext. M. 3) which did not wishper about any
second wife of the deceased workman.
7. Mr. S.C. Gaur, the Learned Advocate/Union
Representative for the petitioner submits that in respect of
Labour and Industrial Laws and Clause 9.5.0 of the National
Coal Wage Agreement the rejection of claim on the ground
that elder brother (Step-brother) of petitioner was already
employed in respondent-Company, but any circular/order
can not be unilaterally issued by employer presenting any
period of limitation or putting any candidate for obtaining
a compassionate appointment by a dependant of regular
employee who died in harness, which is not there is
settlement/agreement so the impugned order of rejection
can not be sustained and accordingly, it was quashed, and
application for it was allowed, as also held in the case of
Sakaldeo Munda Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. reported in
2009(4) J.L.J.R. 704(SB) (Relied upon 2007(4) J.L.J.R. (SC)
144). The cited ruling related to its fact that elder step brother
of petitioner was given employment on compassionate
ground under the scheme of NCWA against the death of
his mother who herself was a regular employee of CCL
whereas petitioner applied for appointment on
compassionate ground against death of his father who
being a regular employee died in harness.
7042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. Whereas Mr. S.N. Ghosh, the Learned Advocate
for the Opp./Management has contended that as the
petitioner has filed her application in the year 2005 for
compassionate employment after three/four years, the
action of the Opp./Management in rejecting her application
as per the policy of the BCCL in its letter dt. 6/24.1.2004
(Ext.M.2) was justified; and she can not claim for
compassionate employment as a matter of right. Relying
upon the rulings (to be noted later on). Mr. Ghosh, the
Learned Advocate for Opp./Management has pleaded that
in consideration of application for compassionate
appointment date of death of an employee is an important
factor to be taken into consideration, employer is within its
power to lay down a policy for compassionate appointment
and it has to strictly adhere to such policy and Rule
applicable on date of death of an employee need to be
followed [Para 12 & 13 (134)FLR 1014 (F.B. of) Punjab &
Haryana (H.C.)] [Relied on 2011(4) SCC 209, Bhawan Pd.
Sankar Vs. Union of India & Ors.]. The Hon'ble High Court
held policy applicable on the date of death need to be
involved to provide immediate relief as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Pd. Sankar that the
scheme in operation at the time of incapacitation of the
employee would be applicable and not the scheme framed
subsequently.
Secondly that in respect of appointment under die in
harness scheme even after 1984 scheme came into force,
application was filed after along lapse of time, applicant,
therefore, had no right to ask for an appointment, as there
was also on record that there was a ban on direct
recruitment under Die-in-harness Scheme as evidenced by
Office Memorandum dt.24th July, 2001 which itself provided
for a claim from the Government in the Deptt. of Personnel
and Admn. Reforms (Pers. Div.) and the Hon'ble Apex Court
held the direction of Single Bench decision to the appellant
to give appointment unjustified in the case of State of
Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin 2003(99)FLR 337(SC)(DB).
Thirdly, that the claimed appointment of the petitioner
at his majority at belated sage after death of his father in
harness in Revenue Deptt. was not accepted as held by
the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in the case of Bhola
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2003 (98) FLR 264(Para 7). It
is settled law that compassionate appointment under dying
in harness Rules should not be given after long years of
the death of the father [Relied upon 1994(68) FLR 1191(SC),
Umesh Kr. Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana etc.]
Further Mr. Ghosh submits that similar view was taken
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.H.P. Corpn. Vs.
Nanak Chand reported in 2004 (103) FLR 707 SC (DB)
wherein setting aside the direction of Hon'ble High Court
concerned to for compassionate appointment of petitioner
respondent who at his majority, had applied for after the
death of his father on 10.12.1976, it was held the judgement
of High Court unsustainable and appointment on
compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but
merely an exception to the requirement regarding
appointment being made an open invitation of application
on merits. (Paras 10 & 15)
Fourthly, that if the family of the deceased employee
could not tide over the financial burden on account of
untimely death of the deceased employee in the year 1994,
after a long lapse of eight years, i.e., in 2001, it could not be
stated that the family members of the deceased employee
still continue to be in financial destitution, under the
scheme, the compassionate appointment could not be
sought as a matter of right or as a matter of course but to
tide over the sudden financial crisis as held in the case of
Liagath Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2003 (97) FLR
93(A.P.H.C.) (DB).
Fifthly, that in the case of Anil Kr. Yadav Vs. Union of
India & Ors, 2004(100) FLR 72 Alld. HC (SB), application of
petitioner who applied on 2.1.2002 for compassionate
appointment after death of his father in harness on 6.12.2001
was rejected on ground of non-existence of any financial
distress in it; moreover, it can be claimed as a matter of
right (Para 9). Lastly it is also submitted for the Opp./
Management that purpose of each appointment is to
mitigate the hardship; Financial condition of family of
deceased has to be examined; such employment is not a
matter of course and not a vested right; and it should not
unduly interfere with right of other persons rather it is to
be provided strictly in accordance with Rules and petitioner
had not fulfilled the requisite formalities; therefore,
appointment was rightly refused by respondents as held
by the Hon'ble High Court in the case Rajesh Sharma Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2003 (99) FLR 533
(SB), likewise rejection of application made by wife after
three years for compassionate appointment as contrasted
with only one year provided under the Scheme. Moreover
appointment in compassionate ground is proivided to tide
away the immediate financial crisis in the case of (Smt.)
Saroj Vs. Union Bank of India, Alld. H.C. (SB).
It is an acknowledged fact that every ratio decidendi
acts upon the facts of certain case.
9. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and
on perusal of the material available on the case record, I
find the following facts:
(i)
In the present reference, the workman died in
harness on 31.12.2001, leaving his dependant wife
petitioner Sanju Devi alone who is quite illiterate.
(ii)
The petitioner had though submitted her
application with all relevant papers after the due
attestation before the Authority concerned on
05.09.2003 as evident from the photocopy of her
petition (Ext.M.3), due to some defects therein,
so after corrections, she finally submitted her
application on 5.1.2005 with all relevant
documents to the Opp./ Management for her
compassionate employment.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7043
(iii)
It is remarkable to note that the BCCL's
Management's Circular No. 195 1270 dt. 24.1.2004
(Ext. M.2) presenting the 18 months time limit for
application for compassioate employment came
into force w.e.f. 14.1.2004 after 2 years 12 days of
the death of deceased workman. But the illiterate
petitioner widow had submitted her first
application dt. 2.9.03 for it on 5th Sept., 2003 as
admitted by the Opp./Management as evident
from the Ext. M.3 itself (photocopy of her
application filed by the Opp./Management).
So the aforesaid scheme dt. 24.1.2004 of the Opp./
Management (Ext. M.2) not in operation at the
time of the death of the workman would not be
applicable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court of India in the leading case of Bhawani
Pd. Sankar, 2011(4) SCC 209.
(iv)
In lack of proof of any scheme of the Opp./
Management relevat on 31.12.01 the date of death
of the workman, the Opp./Management is bound
by the clause 9.5.0.(ii) of NCWA-VI as operative
in NCWA-VII clause 9.3.0 at the relevat time to
provide the illiterate widow petitioner an
employment on compassionate ground, as the
petitioner despite her illiteracy appears to have
been continuously in her best effort in her due
reasonable representation for it, at relevat time,
thought the Opp./Management appeared lack
lustre in proper disposal of her such representation.
10. Under these circumstances, it is responded in the
terms of the reference, and accordingly it is hereby
Ordered
Let the Award be and the same is passed that the
action of the management of Dhansar/Industry Colliery of
M/s. BCCL in not providing employment to Smt. Sanju
Devi, dependant wife of Late Satyandra Paswan is totally
unjustified and illegal. Therefore, petitioner dependant of
the workman is entitled to her employment on
compassionate ground under clause 9.5.0(ii) of
NCWA-VI as operative in NCWA VII Clause 9.3.0 at the
relevant time.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 2754-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dksy
bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
06@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@38@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013
S.O. 2754.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 06/2008 of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s Coal India Limited and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/12/2013.
[No. L-22012/38/2008-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., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati,
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management of Coal India Ltd., Tinsukia, Assam.
Vs.
Their Workman Shri Niranjan Debnath
Ref. Case No. 06 of 2008
APPEARANCES
For the Management :
Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A.M. Dutta, Advocate
For the Workman :
Mr. A Dasgupta, Advocate
Mr. K.M. Haloi, Advocate
Date of Award : 21.11.2013
AWARD
1. This Reference is arising out of an Industrial
dispute existed between the Management of Coal India
Limited and their workman Shri Niranjan Debnath, which
was referred to by the Ministry of Labour, Government of
India vide their Order No. L-22012/38/2008-IR(CM-II);
Dated: 30.06.2008, under Section 10(1)(D) of Industrial
Dispute Act. The Schedule of the Reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Coal
India Limited in dismissing Shri Niranjan Devnath
w.e.f. 05.01.2005 is legal and justified? To what relief
is the concerned workman entitled?”
2. On receipt of this order from the Ministry this
Reference case has been registered and notices were served
upon both the parties for filing their respective claim
statements/written statements along with relevant
documents before the Tribunal with direction to both the
7044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
parties to exchange their respective copies of Claim
Statement/Written Statement and documents between
them. Accordingly both the parties appeared and contested
the proceeding filing their respective claim statement/
written statement.
3. The case of the workman Shri Niranjan Devnath,
in nutshell, is that he was an employee of North Eastern
Coalfields under the Coal India Limited and served as
General Mazdoor being Employee No. 971. On 17.6.2004 a
charge sheet was issued against the workman in
connection with a Disciplinary Proceeding on the charge
of habitual late attendance without sufficient cause, and
the said charge sheet was framed under Clause 26.24 and
26.30 of the Standing Order. After issuing the charge sheet
dated 17.6.2004, the Management appointed Shri S.P. Chaki
as Enquiry Officer and exparte enquiry was held on 20.7.2004.
The Management examined their witness Shri A.C. Dey
and next date was fixed on 15.9.2004 and the workman was
informed about this date and accordingly the workman
appeared before the Enquiry Officer on that day. But the
workman was not offered any opportunity by the Enquiry
Officer to cross-examine the Management witness whose
statement was recorded on 20.7.2004. Then the Enquiry
Officer himself examined the workman and asked the
Presenting Officer to cross-examine him. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding that the charge has been
established in the enquiry, and on the basis of the report of
the Enquiry Officer the workman was discharged from his
duty by the Management on 5.01.2005.
The workman alleged that he was discharged from
his duties in gross violation of natural justice as he was
not even offered with an opportunity to submit his reply
against the charge sheet nor he was given the opportunity
to defend his case through his co-worker. As the workman
is an illiterate person the proceeding was recorded in
English for which he did not understand what had happened
in the enquiry. Had the workman been afforded with the
adequate opportunity he would have been able to establish
his innocence. The workman contended that due to
unavoidable circumstances beyond the range of control,
he could not perform his duties, but he has been illegally
discharged and he is entitled to be reinstated with full
backwages. Hence, the workman prayed for passing award
in his favour directing the Management to reinstate the
workman with full backwages and/or to pass any order as
deem fit.
On receipt of the W.S. filed by the Management the
workman submitted Addl. W.S./claim statement, stating
inter-alia, that he was an honest employee and at no point
of time he was habitual absentee nor did he commit any
misconduct at any point of time. He also mentioned that
the Management never served any caution letter to him
and the charges brought against him are all false, concocted
and have no leg to stand before the eye of law. He stated
that the Departmental Enquiry was proceeded exparte on
20.07.2004 in his absence and on that day the Presenting
Officer was examined behind the charged employees. Thus
the Management, due to not giving any opportunity to
defend the workman and to cross-examine the Presenting
Officer as well as by not providing any opportunity to
submit representation of the workman against the findings
of the Enquiry Proceeding, has committed miscarriage of
justice by discharging the workman from his service on the
basis of the findings of the said departmental enquiry which
is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. The Management, on the other hand, submitted
their W.S. stating that the Coal India Ltd. is a Government
of India undertaking duly registered under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956 with its Registered Office at Kolkata
is engaged in the business of Coal mining in various parts
of the country, and the North Eastern Coalfields is a
subsidiary unit of Coal India Limited. The workman
Sri Niranjan Devnath was appointed as daily rated employee
and engaged as General Mazdoor in the North Eastern
Coal Fields at Margharita on 3.8.91 being employee No.
971. The workman Niranjan Devnath was a habitual
absentee and he had remained absent on a number of
occasions, more particularly from the year 1998, which is
shown below:—
1998.......................69 days.
1999.......................142 days.
2000.......................123 days.
2001.......................211 days.
2002.......................234 days.
2003.......................272 days.
2004.......................145 days up to 17.6.2004.
The Management issued a number of caution letters
to the workman and offered him numerous opportunities
to improve his attendance but he never paid heed to it,
rather continued to remain absent from his duty, and
thereby committed misconduct as per the Standing Order
of North Eastern Coal Fields as described in the Schedule
of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. After giving
him sufficient opportunities the Management issued a
charge sheed being No. C/9/443/C dated 16.04.2001 against
the workman and conducted a prima facie enquiry, whereby
the workman was found guilty of misconduct under the
Provision of the Standing Order as mentioned above.
Accordingly the Management by way of a letter dated
30.10.01 issued to the workman imposing the punishment
such as:—
(i) Stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative
effect under Clause 27.1(c), and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7045
(ii) Posted the workman under Administration
Department to work as General Mazdoor in
Dehing Guest House.
Even after imposition of the aforesaid punishment
the attendance of the workman was not improved. Then
the Management issued another charge sheed No. 13/504/
Adm. dated 25.07.2002 and conducted an enquiry in which
the Management found the workman guilty of misconduct
and again the Management by way of issuing a letter dated
20.1.2003 against the workman decided to impose
punishment as mentioned below:
“Demotion from category-II to Category-I under
clause 27.1(f) of the Standing Orders with initial basic pay”.
But the workman miserably failed to respond to the above
punishment and remained continuously absent from his
work with effect from 13.3.2003 without sanctioned leave
or sufficient cause and hence, the Management, having no
other alternative issued another charge sheet dated
17.6.2004 whereby the workman was charged with
misconduct as per clause 26.24 and 26.30 of the Standing
Order. The workman was also directed to submit his written
explanation within 3 days from the date of the receipt of the
aforesaid charge sheet dated 13.3.2004 asking him as to
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him
for the charges framed against him failing which appropriate
disciplinary action would be taken. Inspite of the aforesaid
charge sheet the workman did not care to improve his
attendance, while the Management, proposed to conduct
a departmental enquiry against the charged employee and
appointed Sri S.P. Chaki, Superintending Engineer, Civil as
Enquiry Officer and C. Momin, Deputy Personnel Manager
as Management representative by way of letter dated
17.7.2004 informing the workman that the enquiry was
proposed to be held on 20.7.2004. The workman was
informed to be present in the office of the Superintending
Engineer, Civil at Margharita on 20.7.2004 along with all the
relevant documents and he was allowed to appoint a co-
worker and to produce witness/witnesses in support of his
defence. On 20.7.2004 the workman did not appear in the
departmental enquiry while the statement of the Presenting
Officer was recroded and thereafter the Management
proposed to hold the said departmental enquiry on
30.7.2004 at the same venue, but leateron the same was
cancelled owing to some unavoidable circumstances
informing the workman by a letter dated 9.9.2004 that the
departmental enquiry would be held on 15.9.2004 at 11 A.M.
at the same venue. The workman was further informed that
he would be given every opportunity to defend his case
and on failure without any acceptable reasons, the Enquiry
would be held ex-parte and the Management would take
any action as deem fit. Accordingly the departmental
enquiry was held on 15.9.2004 in presence of the Enqiry
Officer and the Presenting Officer and on that day the
workman was present but he could not produce any
authentic document/evidence in support of his defence.
After considering all the pros and cons of the matter the
Enquiry Officer decided that the charges framed against
the workman proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Thereafter, the Management, considering the gravity of
offence, by an order dated 5.1.2005 discharged the workman
from the service under Clause-27.1(g) of the Standing Order
applicable to the workman.
Further contention of the Management is that the
workman was given ample opportunity to defend his case
right from the year 1998 by issuing numerous letters for
improving his attendance but the workman miserably failed
to respond the same and remained absent continuously
from time to time which is a serious offence as per Standing
Orders as aforesaid, the conduct of the workman shows
that he is not at all interested to work for the Management
which in any way, can not support an unproductive
employee as that of the workman who has become a burden
on the part of Management. Hence, the Management had
rightly issued the impugned order and as such there can
be no reason for this Tribunal to interfere with the said
order and the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected.
The Management further reiterated that the impugned order
of discharge was passed as per law complying all the
requirements of law and had also conducted the
departmental enquiry in accordance with the law as well as
the principles of natural justice and as the workman has
miserably failed to make out a case warranting interference
of this Tribunal,, the workman is not entitled to any relief
as claimed.
The Management further, by filing additional Written
Statement, assailed all the allegations raised by the
workman in his claim statement and the additional claim
statement. The Management mentioned that the workman
was issued sufficient opportunities to submit the reply
against the charge sheet as well as the enquiry report; and
that the workman is not an illiterate as his service record
shows that he read upto Class-VIII standard. Moreover,
during the course of the enqiry dated 15.9.2004 the statement
were read over and translated to him into the language
best understood by the workman before obtaining his
signature over them and as such the plea taken by the
workman ought to be rejected.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence and submitted
documents in support of their respective cases. I have
perused the entire C.R. along with the evidence on record
and also heard argument from both the sides at length.
6. The workman Niranjan Debnath in his evidence
stated that he was employee of Coal India Ltd. and served
as Carpenter helper. In the year 1990 he was declared as
medically unfit and removed from the service on medical
ground; and thereafter, in accordance with the exsisting
rules in force he was appointed as General Mazdoor in
category-I initially. Accordingly he was entrusted with the
unskilled job like carpenter helper, mason helper, cleaning
7046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of jungles, painter helper etc. In course of time he was
upgraded as General Mazdoor Grade-II and he discharged
his duty to the satisfacton of all concerned. Due to his ill
health sometimes he could not perform his duties and he
always submitted sick certificate issued by the approved
Doctor of Coal India Ltd. but the Chief Engineer (Civil)
under whom he was working, refused to accept the sick
certificate submitted by him on several occasions and
thereby joining on these occasions considerably delayed,
and he had to request his officer to consider his case and
after long persuasion he had to join his duties. In the month
of June, 2002 he could not perform his duties for few days
due to illness and in fact, he was absent for 7 to 10 days in
that month. After his recovery he reported for duties to the
Executive Engineer (Civil) at Margherita along with sick
certificate issued by the Doctor Sri Chandrasekhar Sarma
of Central Hospital, Coal India Ltd. at Margherita but the
Chief Engineer told him that it was a false certificate
obtained by him through influence through he was not
sick. He inspite of his best efforts failed to convenience
the Executive Engineer (Civil) that he was really sick and
the certificate was a genuine one. On several occasions he
went to his office to perform his duties but he was rebuked
like anything by the Officers. Ultimately, the Personnel
Manager, Coal India Ltd., North Eastern Coal Field Ltd.
Margherita, issued charge sheet on 17.6.2004 vide Exhibit-
1. Thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against
him. The workman also mentioned that the Management
has not prayed for examination of fairness of the enquiry
as preliminary issue. He has been deposing on merit though
the enquiry was in gross violation of principle of natural
justice. He was discharged from his service by the Personnel
Manager, North Eastern Coal Fields, Coal India Ltd.,
Margherita on 05.01.2005, vide Exhibit-2. He also added
that he is a poor man having 3 school going sons, wife and
mother, maintining his livelihood by performing the job of
painter as and when available and his discharged from
service is not only illegal but unjustified. He is entitled to
be reinstated.
In course of his cross-examination the workman
witness No. 1, Sri Niranjan Debnath denied the fact that he
remained absent for 69 days, 142 days, 123 days, 211 days,
234 days, 272 days and 145 days till (17.6.2004) in the year
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 respectively. He
admitted that he had received 2 show cause letters from
the Company and his increment was stopped. He denied
the suggestion tendered by the Management that he was
degraded from service and that he was discharged from
service due to his long absenteeism. The W.W. 1 further
mentioned that in one departmental enquiry he remained
present but in the departmental enquiry his statement was
not recorded by the Management. He again categorically
denied that he was asked whether he had to be defended
by the co-worker while he refused. He also stated that on
18.9.2004 he was present in the departmental proceeding
and charge was not explained to him in Assamees but he
never admitted his guilt nor prayed for apology and his
discharged letter was sent to his home address on 5.1.2005.
7. The Management, on the other hand examined
Sri Rajen Kumar Dutta, the then Chief Manager (Personnel),
North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Ltd., Margherita as
Management witness No. 1. According to Management
Witness No. 1 (MW.1) the workman was appointed as daily
rated employee and engaged as General Mazdoor in the
Management Company on 3.8.1991 being his employee
No. 971, but the workman was a habitual asbentee and he
had to remain absent on various occasions as shown below:
Year
Period of absent
1988
69 days out of 212 actual working days.
1999
142 days.
2000
123 days.
2001
211 days.
2002
235 days.
2003
272 days.
2004
145 days upto 17.6. 2004.
The aforesaid attendance record of the workman for
the year 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 are exhibited as Exhibit-
A series. The Management witness concerned stated that
the Management issued various letters to the workman
who did never pay attention to the same and continued to
ramain absent from his work and thereby committed
misconduct as per Standing Orders of North Eastern
Coalfields as described in Schedule of Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973, and hence the Management
issued charge sheet being No. C/9/443/C dated 16.04.2001
to the workman and conducted an enquiry thereafter. In
that enquiry the workman was found guilty of misconduct
under the Provision of Standing Orders applicable to their
Company and accordingly the Management by way of letter
dated 30.10.2001 marked as Exhibit-B issued to the workman
deciding to impose the following punishements to the
workman:—
1. Stoppage of three increments without cumulative
effect under the Clause 27.1(c), and
2. Posting under the Administrative Department to
work as a General Mazdoor in Dehing Guest House.
Even after imposition of the aforesaid punishment
the attendance of the workman never improved while the
Management issued another charge sheet being No.
13/504/Adm dated 25.07.2002 and conducted another
enquiry, whereby Management found the workman guilty
of misconduct. Then the Management vide their letter dated
20.01.2003 issued to the workman marked as Exhibit-C
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7047
decided to impose the following punishment upon the
workman:—
“Demotion from Category-II to Category-I under
clause 27.1 (f) of the Standing Orders with initial basic
pay.”
The MW. 1 further mentioned that the aforesaid
punishment was imposed instead of dismissing the workman
but the workman miserably failed to respond to the above
and remained continuously absent from his work with effect
from 13.3.03 without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause.
Finding no alternative, the Management, issued another
charge sheet dated 17.6.2004 whereby the workman was
charged for misconduct as per clause 26.24 and 26.30 of
Standing Orders vide Exhibit-1. But the workman did not
care to improve his attendance and then the Management
proposed to conduct departmental enquiry against the
workman wherein Sri S.P. Chaki, Superintending Engineer
(Civil) was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Sri C. Monim,
Deputy Personnel Manager was appointed as Presenting
Officer. Accordingly the workman was informed vide letter
dated 17.7.2004 marked as Exhibit-E that the enquiry was
proposed to be held on 20.7.2004 with request to the
workman to be present at the office of the Superintending
Engineer (Civil) at Margharita on 20.7.2004 along with all
the required documents and also providing option to
appoint a co-worker and produce witness/witnesses in
support of his defence. On 20.7.2004 the Enquiry Officer
recorded the statement of Presenting Officer and thereafter
vide their letter dated 9.9.2004 the Management informed
the workman that the departmental enquiry would be held
on 15.9.2004 at 11 A.M. at the same venue and on that day
the workman was present in the enquiry proceeding but he
failed to produce any authentic document/evidence in
support of his defence and thereafter the Enquiry Officer
considered all the aspect of the case, substantiated the
charges framed against the workman vide Exhibit-G, beyond
all reasonable doubt, and accordingly the Management by
an order dated 5.1.2005 marked as Exhibit-H discharged the
workman from the service of North Eastern Coalfields under
clause 27.1(g) of the Standing Orders.
The Management witness concerned added that the
workman was given ample opportunities to defend his case
by issuing various letters to the workman for improving
his attendance but he remained absent continuously from
time to time which is a serious offences as per the Standing
Orders. He also reiterated that the Management issued the
impugned order as per law by complying all the requirements
of law, and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with
law. But the workman in spite of requesting him to be
present with co-worker and produce documents/witnesses,
if any failed to produce any document and on 15.9.2004 the
workman expressed before the Enquiry Officer that he did
not require the help of any co-worker and the workman
accepted the charge before the Enquiry Officer. Since the
workman accepted the charge the Presenting Officer did
not cross-examine the workman which shows that the
Management has conducted the departmental enquiry in
accordance with law and as such, the workman is not
entitled to any relief as claimed for.
During his cross-examination the MW.1 stated that
they have produced the Attendance records of the workman
for the year 2001,2002,2003 and 2004 vide Exhibit-A series
but he did not produce the Attendance Register in respect
of the workman for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000. He said
that in Exhibit-A series at page-1 the statement of
Attendance Register there is one re-writing in Column-12,
also in the statement of Attendance for the year 2002 there
is one over writing in Column-6 at page 2 of Exhibit-A series
there is a correction without the initial in the month of
January, 2004. He admitted that he has not proved any
document to show that the workman has acknowledged
the receipt of the charge sheet dated 17.6.2004 (Exhibit-1),
and he has not also produced the Standing Orders of North
Eastern Coalfields as mentioned by him. In course of the
suggestion tendered by the learned Advocate for the
workman the MW.1 denied that the Exhibit-A series was
not properly prepared and all these are tempered documents
and that the notices marked as Exhibits-B and C were not
served upon the workman as he has not produced any
document to show the acknowledgement of receipt of the
notices. The MW.1 also said that the enquiry was started
against the workman on 20.7.2004 and the notice fixing
said date was issued upon the workman on 17.7.2004 but
there is no record to show that the subsequent enquiry
was held on 15.9.2004 and the workman was also present
on that day. He also denied the suggestion that the
Statement of the workman was also recorded without asking
the workman any question at the instance of the Enquiry
officer. He further said that the enquiry proceeding marked
as Exhibit-G at page-5 there is no mention to the effect that
the workman was given an opportunity to cross-examine
the Presenting Officer or any other witness for the
Management. He also added that the show cause notice
calling explanation upon the workman as to why
punishment should not be imposed was issued to the
workman but there is no record to show that before imposing
punishment the notice asking the workman for any
explanation/show cause was issued upon the workman.
The Management witness again mentioned that the Officer-
in-charge under whom the workman was working lodged
complaint regarding his irregularities but he had not
produced any document in this respect. He also
categorically denied that the enquiry proceeding was held
in violation of principles of natural justice and that the
action taken by the Management upon the workman was
arbitrary and illegal.
8. From the evidence adduced by both the sides along
with the documents relied upon by them it appears that the
plea of the Management that the workman Niranjan Debnath
who was appointed as daily rated employee as General
7048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mazdoor on 3.8.91 under the Management was a habitual
absentee who remained absent on different occasions
without any authority, even the workman was cautioned at
different occasions and show cause notices were issued
upon the workman in this connection is found to be proved;
and punishment of withholding three increments without
cumulative effect imposed againt the workman is an admitted
fact. The Management also degraded the workman from
Category-II to Catogory-I inspite of the above mentioned
measures taken by the Management for improving and
rectifying his conduct, the workman did not care to improve
his attendance. In this regard the attendance record for the
year 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 proved by the Management
vide Exhibit-A series can not be thrown away although
there is some minor over writing in the said attendance
record as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the
workman in course of cross-examination of the Management
witness No. 1, and this minor defect in the attendance
record might be occurred due to clerical mistake which is
ignorable as it will not vitiate the entire testimoney of the
Management. The punishment of stoppage of three
increments without cumulative effect and posting of the
workman under Administration Department to work as
General Mazdoor in Dehing Guest House vide order dated
30.10.2001 proved as Exhibit-B, is also found well
established. The contention of the Management that
another enquiry was held in connection with charge sheet
dated 25.7.2002 wherein the workman was found guilty of
misconduct under the provision of Standing Orders and
the workman was punished for demotion from Category-II
to Category-I under clause 27.1(f) of the Standing Orders
which was communicated to the workman vide
Management’s letter No. 42/PIR/120 dated 20.1.2003 marked
as Exhibit-C, which is an official document duly proved in
the Court without any objection and hence, this contention
of the Management that the workman was even degraded
from Category-II to Category-I can not be disbelieved.
The workman in his evidence mentioned that due to
his ill health sometimes he could not perform his duties
and he submitted sick certificate issued by the approved
Doctors of Coal India Ltd. but the workman has not been
able to establish this plea producing supporting evidence
either orally or documentary. Even in his evidence the
workman admitted that in the month of June, 2002 he could
not perform his duties for few days due to illness and he
was absent for 7 to 10 days in the said month, although he
after recovery reported for duty to the Executive Engineer
(Civil) along with sick certificate but it was rejected by the
Executive Engineer alleging that the said sick certificate
was false, obtained using influence on the Doctor but the
workman has not taken any step to establish his contention
neither by adducing documentary evidence nor by
examining the Medical Officer who issued the Medical
Certificates. Thus the conduct of the workman in regard to
regular absenteeism as claimed by the Management is well
established. The workman in his evidence mentioned that
the Management issued charge sheet on 17.6.2004 marked
as Exhibit-1 and a departmental proceeding was initiated
against his which was communicated to him, but the
departmental enquiry was held in gross violation of
principles of natural justice and ultimately he was illegally
discharged from his service on 5.1.2005 vide Management
letter dated 5.1.2005 marked as Exhibit-2. In his cross-
examination although he mentioned that he was present
before the enquiry authority on 18.9.2004 but the charge
was not explained to him in Assamees. There is nothing on
record to show that the workman submitted his written
statement/reply to the charge sheet before the enquiry
authority. From the documents nemaly charge sheet marked
as Exhibit-1, the notices of enquiry marked as Exhibit-E and
F; and the proceeding of departmental proceeding in to the
act of misconduct against the workman according to the
Standing Order in repsect of the charge sheet No. LW.13/
C.1/02/Admn. Dated 17.6.2004 held on 15.9.2004 proved as
Exhibit-G (6 pages), along with the testimoney of
Management witness No. 1 it appears that the workman
was informed to attend before the Enquiry Officer at the
Office of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), Magherita
on 20.7.2004 along with all the required documents and he
was allowed the option to appoint co-worker and produce
witness/witnesses in support of his defence. It has become
crystal clear that the Management has duly informed the
workman to attend the departmental proceeding held on
20.7.2004 and subsequently on 15.9.2004 with intimation to
the workman vide Exhibit-F as it appears from Exhibit-G.
While the statement of the workman in course of his cross-
examination, that he appeared before the Enquiry Officer
on 18.9.2004 is found to be not believable as the enquiry
has already been completed on 15.9.2004.
9. In course of argument Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned
Advocate for the workman submitted that the workman
was not notified as to the initiation of the enquiry
proceeding nor the workman was given any opportunity
to represent himself as well as to be heard; and even the
workman was deprived of exercising his fundamental right
as enshrined in Constitution of India (Article 309 and 311).
He also emphasized that the workman was an innocent and
he would contest the departmental proceeding if notified
to him. Mr. Haloi contended that the Management in order
to deprive the workman from his job and with malafide
intention initiated the enquiry proceeding keeping the
workman in darkness and accordingly made this ex-parte
enquiry violating the principle of natural justice as well as
the provision of Constituion by discharging the workman
illegally exercising the hire and fire policy, and such action
of the Management is liable to be set aside.
In support of his argument Mr. Haloi relied decisions
laid down in the following cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(a) In C.L. Subramaniam—vrs—The collector of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7049
Customs, reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2178, wherein
it was held in Para-5 as- ‘‘The appellant who was a member
of the Civil service of the Union of India was holding his
office during the pleasure of the President; but in view of
Article 311 of the Constitution, he could not have been
removed from service except after enquiry in which he had
been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of the charge levelled against him. This procedural
guarantee is undoubtedly a valuable one. Breach of that
guarantee vitiates the enquiry’’
(b) In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and
Others—vs—B. Karunakar and Others reported (1993) 4
Supreme Court Cases 727 and in Union of India and
Others—vrs—Md. Ramjan Khan, it was held that Right to
show cause against penalty proposed which has been taken
away by the 42nd Amendment pertains to the second stage
of the inquiry when disciplinary authority takes decision
of the question of penelty imposable on the delinquent,
denial of right to copy of the enquiry report amounts to
denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of Articles
14 and 21 and principles of natural justice; Where
punishment imposable is other than the major punishment
of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank and the rules
contemplate inquiry and the enquiry officer is not the
disciplinary authority, then also enquiry report is to be
supplied; and non-furnishing the copy of report of Enquiry
Officer to the delinquent employee would be violative of
principles of natural justice rendering the final order invalid
against the delinquent void.
10. Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Sr. Advocate for the
Management, on the other hand, objecting to the
submission of the workman side raised his argument stating
that the workman was appointed as General Mazdoor daily
rated worker in the event of removal of his father from
service on medical ground. But the workman was found a
habitual absentee and in spite of issuing caution letter/
warning letter and even imposing punishment for his
absence the workman did not improve his attendance.
Thereafter the Management finding no alternative initiated
an enquiry, framed the charge against the workman for
violation of Clause 26.30 and Clause-26.24 and Clause-26.24
of the Standing Order as discussed above, and issued notice
along with the charge sheet against the workman.
Mr. Ahmed also mentioned that the workman was
absenting from his duty deliberately without any intimation
although he has taken the plea that due to medical ground
he could not attend his duty but there is no iota of evidence
on record to show that such explanation of the workman is
found established and hence the workman is not entitled
to any relief as claimed. In support of his contention he
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bank of India—vrs—T.S. Kelawala and Others, S.U. Motors
Private Ltd.—vrs—Workmen published in (1990) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 744 that deliberate abstention from work,
whether by resort to strike or go slow of any other method,
legitimate, resulting in no works for the whole day or days
or part of the day or days, will entitle the management to
deduct, pro rata or otherwise, wages of the participating
workmen notwithstanding absence of any stipulation in
the contract of employment or any provision in the service
rules, regulations or Standing Orders.
Mr. Ahmed further argued that the workman being a
daily rated worker appointed on a compassionate ground
in the event of discharge of his father on medical ground,
committed gross misconduct and due to such behaviour
of the workman the order of discharge passed by the
Management after holding enquiry is in no way illegal and
the workman has also no right to the post. Mr. Ahmed
relied upon the decision in Reserve Bank of India—vrs—
Gopinath Sharma and Another wherein it was laid down
that the workman not appointed to any regular post but
engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis
held, acquired to right to the post.
The Management side also submitted that the
enquiry against the workman was held as per procedure
and the charges framed against the workman was found
well established, but due to failure of the Enquiry Officer to
supply the enquiry proceeding and the punishment
proposed by the Management against the workman will
not vitiate the entire enquiry proceeding as well as its
finding. Learned Advocate for the Management also
submitted that if the Tribunal finds that the instant reference
case would be prejudiced because of non supply of the
report the Tribunal may set aside the order punishment
and issue direction for fresh enquiry from the stage of
supply of the report. In this connection Mr. Ahmed, the
learned counsel for the Management, cited the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in NTC (WBAB&O) Ltd. and
Another—vrs—Anjan K. Saha published in (2004) 7
Supreme Court Cases 581 which runs as follows:—
‘’The language of clause 14(4)(c) of the Model
Standing Orders is not mandatory. In any case, non-
compliance therewith cannot be held to be a more vitiating
factor than non-supply of enquiry report. If the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in cases of non-supply of
enquiry report directs the procedure to be adopted by
allowing the employer to restart the enquiry from the stage
of supply of enquiry report without reinstating the
employee, why such a course should not be directed to be
adopted where the other grievance of the employee is denial
of opportunity to show cause against proposed penalty?
When the court can direct a fresh enquiry from the stage of
supply of enquiry report the next step in the enquiry of
giving opportunity against the proposed penalty can also
be directed to be taken. After the fresh enquiry is over from
the stage of supply of enquiry report, the employee can be
granted opportunity against proposed penalty in terms of
clause 14(4)(c) of the Model Standing Orders.
Consequential order, if any passed, shall abide the final
result of the proceedings. As held in the case of B.
Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 if the employee is cleared of the
charges and is reinstated, the disciplinary authority would be at
7050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period
from the date of dismissal till the period of reinstatement
and the consequential benefits.’’
Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned Advocate for the workman
vehemently objecting to the submission of the learned
Advocate for the Management citing the case of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur—vrs—Om Prakash Sharma
reported in (2006) 5 SCC 123 that this Tribunal/Labour Court
cannot go beyond the terms of reference and an award
passed by the Labour Court in excess of his jurisdiction,
held, his capability of correction by the High Court in
exercise of the power judicial review. He also relied upon
the decision laid down in Mahendra L. Jain and Ors.—
vrs—Indore Development Authority and Ors. reported in
(2005) 1 SCC 639 ‘‘(Head Note D). Labour law-Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947—Ss 10 and 11—Jurisdiction of the
Labour Court—Held, Labour Court cannot enlarge the
scope of reference nor can deviate therefrom—A demand
not raised at the time of raising dispute, cannot be
adjudicated by it—Further held, no relief dan be granted
against a separate juristic entity which was not a party to
the proceedings—M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1961 (26 of 1961)—M.P. Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1963'’.
On perusal of the document relied upon both the
parties & upon preponderance of the testimony on record
as well as the arguments placed by the learned Advocates
from both the sides it appears that the Management have
exhausted all the procedure for causing service of notice
along with the charge sheet upon the workman and the
workman has not been able to establish his contention
that he was absent from duty with authority nor could he
support his contention by adducing any oral or
documentary evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the
Management has been able to prove the charge of habitual
absent from duty without sufficient cause and absent from
duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over
staying beyond sanctioned leave, as framed by the
Management under Clause 26.24 and Clause 26.30 of the
Standing Order. On scrutiny of the proceeding of the
departmental enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer
marked as Exhibit-H together with my discussion as above,
I find the charges was established against the workman.
However there is nothing on record to show that the
Management before imposing punishment against the
workman the proceeding of the departmental enquiry &
the final order imposing punishment was supplied to the
workman. Due to such procedural irregularities, I find no
reason to pass an award setting aside the punishment only
because of the procedural irregularity i.e. the non-supply
of proceeding of the enquiry along with its findings and
the punishment imposed upon the workman, as it will casue
much prejudice to this proceeding. As such I am inclined
to accept the submission of Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned
Advocate for the Management as to passing an Award
allowing the employer to start the enquiry from the stage
of supply of enquiry report without reinstating the
employee since the workman has already been discharged.
11. In view of my above discussion and the findings
as well as the ratio of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held in the cases as aforesaid, I find it a fit case to
follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NTC
(WBAB&O) Ltd. and Another—vrs—Anjan K. Saha
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 581. Further there is also no chance
of infringement of jurisdiction of this Tribunal nor any
violation of the terms of reference.
Accordingly this reference is disposed of directing
the Management a fresh enquiry from the stage of supply
of enquiry to the next step in the enquiry giving opportunity
agsinst the proposed penalty is also be directed; and after
the fresh enquiry is over from the stage of the supply of
the enquiry report the workman be granted opportunity
against the proposed penalty as per provision of Model
Standing Order. The Disciplinary Authority would be at
liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period
from the date of dismissal in the event of passing any order
of reinstatement or consequential benefit. The management
is further directed to dispose of the inquiry proceedings as
directed above, within three (3) months from the date of
notification of the award. The workman is also directed to
co-operate with the Management in disposing the inquiry
proceeding.
Send the Award to the Government as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
21st day of November, 2013 at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2755-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21 dk 2008½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@155@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2013
S.O. 2755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2008 )
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Kustore Area of
M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 11/12/2013.
[No. L-20012/155/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7051
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), DHANBAD
PRESENT:
SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec. 10
(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 21 of 2008
PARTIES:
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area of
M/s BCCL and their workmen.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman:
Mr. B.K. Mishra, Ld.
Adv.
On behalf of the management:
Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Adv.
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th 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-20012/155/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 03.03.2008.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the Management of East
Bhagatdih Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing the
services of Shri Vijay Beldar, Fitter w.e.f. 26.05.2003 is
justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that
no sooner did the workman on 26.09.12 file one petition
with the Certified Copy of the Order dt. 27.08.2012 of the
Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand at Ranchi passed on in
W.P. (S) No. 3825/2012 than the Tribunal expedited and
tried to conclude the proceeding within 90 days from the
date its certified copy placed before it on 26.09.2012. Due
to unavoidable delay in filing of the Written Statement by
the workman on 22.11.12 its Written Statement rejoinder of
the management on 20.11.12, and examination of both the
parties witnesses on Preliminary Point on 2nd Jan. and 8th
Feb., 2013 respectively, it matured for disposal.
3. The case of the workman is stated in his written
statement unsigned by him or by the sponsoring union
representative Pintu Mandal, though earlier representing
for the workman, is that petitioner Bijay Beldar (Personal
No. 01194174) was though the bonafide employee as the
Mechanical Fitter at Kustore Area, East Bhagatdih Colliery
of M/s B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, yet terminated from his service
with immediate effect as per the Office Order No.
EBC:PD:03No. 784 dt. 23/26.5.2003 in pursuance of the Ex-
parte departmental proceeding which is legally
unsustainable as no principles of natural justice were
followed. After completion of his seven years’ service, he
was upgraded to the next higher grade/category as the
letter/Ref. No. EBC/PD/2002/F-SLU/64 dt. 9/14.1.2002. But
due to some unavoidable circumstances, after giving leave
application to the Controlling Officer, the petitioner went
to his native place in Nov. 2002. The Management without
considering his application initiated a departmental
proceeding which was held ex-parte, as he was not available
for his defence. On raising his industrial dispute by the
Trade Union Janta Mazdoor Sangh before the Appropriate
Government, when the management uncared for it, and the
failure of conciliation resulted in the reference for an
adjudication. The management though meanwhile decided
and reinstated several similar persons as per its policy for
reinstatement of the dismissed employees as published in
the Hindustan News paper on 22.12.2011, it became
insensitive to the present case. The petitioner and his entire
family became hand to mouth even to beggary. The action
of the management is contrary to the Articles 14 & 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to same
sympathy and compassion as dealt with other terminated
employees.
4. Likewise, the petitioner in his unsigned rejoinder
categorically denied and stated that he was the obedient
and sincere employee of the BCCL. He was never
chargesheeted earlier. All the ex-parte departmental
proceedings were without his knowledge. He is heartly
eager to get his job.
5. Whereas with specific denials, the contra case of
the management is that the petitioner was a habitual
absentee who unauthorisedly absented from his duties
w.e.f. 21.11.2002. So he was chargesheeted under clause
26.1.1. of the Certified Standing Order of the Company for
habitual absentism as per the letter No. EBC/PD/03/Abs/
202 dt. 6.2.2003 permitting him to submit his written
explanation within 07 days, otherwise his acceptance of
misconduct would be treated and necessary disciplinary
action would ensue yet he did not reply to the chargesheet.
As per the letter dt. 28.02.2003 with a copy to the procedee,
the Disciplinary Authority appointed Sr. S.S. Roy as the
Enquiry Officer and Sri Dilip Ram as Management
Representative. Despite three Regd. Notices dt. 28.2.03,
1.3.2003 and 27.03.2003 fixing the date of 11th April, 2003 at
03.00 p.m., otherwise the enquiry to be held ex-parte, the
workman neither appeared nor submitted any explanation
about his non-attendance for duty. The enquiry was ex-
parte held in which the Management Representative also
7052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
produced the past attendances of the workman as such 16,
63 and 84 days in the years 2000 to 2002 respectively. On
the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary
Authority as per the letter No. EPC/PD/03/F-Abs/600
dt. 11.3/12.4.03 with a copy of the enquiry report issued to
the workman for his written reply within 15 (fifteen) days.
After perusal of the Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report
and supportive documents, the Disciplinary Authority
decided to impose upon him the penalty of dismissal for
his proved misconduct; accordingly he was dismissed from
service as per the letter No. 784 dt. 24.5.2003.
6. Further the case of the management is that in the
I.D. raised by the Union concerned, the management as for
the letter No. BCCL/KA/DCPM/07 dt. 30.05.2007 had
submitted in details before the Conciliation Officer/ALC(C),
Dhanbad. The date of birth (DoB) of the workman Vijay
Beldar as per the record is 22 years as on 28.08.86 and his
date of appointment is 07.01.1987. Since the workman did
not himself improve to be punctual in his duties, the action
of the management for his dismissal on his proved
misconduct is just, fair and quite legal. The workman is not
entitled to any relief in the matter, as he was eagar neither
in his job nor in attending to the Enquiry, rather he had
filed the Writ-W.P. (S) No. 3825/2012 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi which was dismissed
as per the Order dt. 27.08.2012 with the observation to the
Tribunal for expediting and concluding the proceeding of
the Reference within specified time.
7. The management in its rejoinder specifically denied
the allegation of the workman, and stated that so far as the
record and policy of the Company about SLU to the
workman with others are concerned, it was effected from
1.1.2001 as per the provision of NCWA and the Office Order
No. EBC/PD/2002/F-SLU/64 dt. 9/14.1.2002 for Cat. V on
upgradation. A look at the past attendance of the workman
as meagre showed no improvement in him. The principle of
natural justice was all along maintained in the enquiry
FINDING WITH REASONING
8. At a clear cut glance over the evidences of WWI
Vijay Beldar, the petitioner and MWI Dilip Roy Asstt. of
Bhagatdih Colliery for the management on preliminary point,
the Tribunal as per Order No. 25 dt. 22.2.2013 held the ex-
parte domestic enquiry as quite fair and natural as per the
rules of natural justice, as the petitioner could not produce
reasonable reasons for the unauthorised absence from
duty, rather it seemed his wilful evasion from the enquiry
though ample opportunity was given. In result, the reference
case came for hearing over the final argument.
9. Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner
workman submits that dismissal of the workman for his
first absentism is very harash like capital punishment, so
he should be re-instated in his service even without backs.
In response to it, Mr. U.N. Lal. the Ld. Counsel for the O.P./
Management has contended that the meagre attendance
of the petitioner manifests his habitual absentism from duty;
if he was dismissed on his such proved misconduct under
the specified Certified Standing Order of the Company, it
was quite just and legal in that aspect.
10. On careful consideration of the materials available
on the case record. I find the indisputable fact as under:
(i) the petitioner workman was a permanent employee
as Mechanical Fitter of the Management.
(ii) Previously, he never faced any such charge of
misconduct as evident from the record, and
(iii) He had served the East Baghatdih Colliery of
M/s BCCL for a long time since his appointment on
07.01.1987.
Under these circumstances, as well as in exercise of
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/s 11 A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, I find and hold that the dismissal
punishment to the petitioner-workman for his aforesaid
misconduct is not only highly harsh and unjustified but
also disproportionate to the nature of his misconduct of
absentism, so it is liable to set aside.
In result , in view of the terms of the reference under
adjudication, it is and the same be hereby :
ORDERED
that the action of the management of East Bhagatdih
Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing the services of
Shri Vijay Beldar, Fitter, w.e.f. 26.05.2003 is totally unjustified
and illegal. Therefore, the workman is held entitled to
reinstatement in his service but without back wages.
The O.P./Management is directed to implement the
Award within six weeks from the date of its receipt following
the publication of it by the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour New Delhi in the Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2756-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj , ;w ,vj
ykbZul ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31
vkWQ 2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@12@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7053
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2013
S.O. 2756.—.In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/11)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Aerosvit Ukrainian
Airlines, Room No. 1106, Surya and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 11/12/2013.
[No. L-11012/12/2010-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
PRESENT: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 31/11
Sh. Krishan Kumar,
Tehsil & Distt. Rewari,
Haryana.
Vs.
The Director,
Aerosvit Ukrainian Airlines,
Room No. 1106,
Surya Kiran Building-19,
K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-11012/12/2010-IR(CM-I))
dated 29/03/2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this tribunal for the adjudication:—
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s Aerosvit Ukrainion Airliens New Delhi in
terminating the services of Sh. Krishan Kumar,
S/o Maman Singh, Ex Loader w.e.f. 25/08/2008 is just
fair and legal? To what relief the workman concerned
is entitles to and from which date?
On 18/04/2011 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 31/11 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from
date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim
statement on 23/11/2011. Wherein he stated as follows:—
1. That the employee joined your department
09.10.1996 at Turkmanistan Airlines and starts working on
the post of loader and further after giving him promotion
on 25.11.2003 transferred me in Aerosvit Airlines on the
post of Airlines operator as both the Airlines are working
together as well as the offices of both the Airlines was the
same.
2. That the employee has been working sincerely
and devotedly in your department. His date of appointment
is 09.10.1996, a Identity card by your department was also
issued to the employee vide PIC No. 1005573D in the year
2001 and was valid upto 31.12.2004 of Turkmanistan as the
employee was on the post of loader. Further a New Identity
Card was issued to the employee in the year 2007 and the
same was valid upto 31.12.2009. The copies of both the
Identity Cards are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal
of this Hon’ble Court.
3. That on 23.08.2008 suddenly without any
information your department sent a termination letter to
the employee dated 23.08.2008 stating therein that your
department is no more required the services of the
employees in future. The copy of the termination letter
dated 23.08.2008 is also enclosed herewith.
4. That the employee continuously works with both
of your Airlines for about 12 years honestly, punctually
but the Management/respondent never gave any benefit
of P.F., ESI to the employee and despite the best services
given by the employee the Management/respondent
terminated the employee without giving any further
intimation.
5. That the salary of the employee was Rs. 6200 per
month at the time of termination and expect the above said
salary, he was not provided any of the benefits as stated
above throughout his services.
6. That the employee is a very poor person and is the
sole bread earner of his family as the whole family is totally
dependent upon him and it is now more than about 3 years
of termination the employee and his family members are
facing a great hardship as it can be said that the employee
is his hand to the month or in other sense it can be said that
the employee and his family is one the verge of starvation.
7. That it is further pertinent to mention here that the
employee is married and is having two children including 3
married sisters and the education expenses of his two
children is more than Rs. 1900 per month and the employee
is ready to produced the documents of fees, if required by
this Hon’ble Court. The employee is also having a policy
in which he has to deposit Rs. 16,000 per annum and now it
is very much difficult for the employee to afford all the
above said.
7054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. That because of the above mentioned
circumstances the employee goes into depression, mental
pain and agony and further due to tension many a times
the employee starts quarrelling with his wife and parents.
It is very important to mention here that the Management/
respondent had also not given one month of salary to the
employee for which he deserves.
9. That the employees have also sent a letter to the
Chief Minister of Delhi. The copy of the said letter is also
enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10. That the employee at last filed a case against the
Management/respondent and the Management/
respondent had sent a false and frivolous Reply to the
employee, alleging false and fabricated facts in the said
reply. That the Management/respondent is alleging false
facts in their reply only in order to harassed the poor
employee.
11. That is has been stated in their reply that at the
time of joining there executed a Agreement between the
employee and the Management/respondent which is totally
false as the employee had never being served with any
agreement or had signed any agreement. However, if there
are any documents signed by the employee are without
the knowledge and full information to the employee. It is
further stated that if any documents were signed by the
employee, those were signed only on the good faith of the
Management/respondent but the Management/respondent
has illegally, unlawfully terminated the poor employee.
12. That the employee approached the Management/
respondent so many times and sent request letters for
rejoining him but the said Management/respondent did
not pay any heed to the requests of the employee. Copy of
the letter is enclosed herewith. Hence the employee has
filed the said claim.
13. That due to the adamant attitude and not
appointing the employee further on service commits an
unfair practice by the Management/respondent.
On the basis of contents mentioned in aforesaid
paragraphs Labour/Claimant prayed that this Hon’ble may
kindly be pleased to pass an award in favour of the employee
and against the Management/respondent directing them
to take the employee on service and to provide him all the
benefits i.e. P.F., gratuity etc including the Medical facilities
alongwith increments which were till date not given by the
respondent. In this regard the Management/respondent
be called in the conciliation proceedings before this
Hon’ble court, and if the Management/respondent fails to
heed the request, same may please by forwarded to the
concerned court for compulsory adjudication.
Management filed its written statement on 17.04.12.
Wherein he stated as follows:—
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION/OBJECTIONS
1. The claim of the workman filed before this Hon’ble
Court does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section
2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the employment
of the employee was terminated by the Management in
terms of the contract entered into between the Employee
and the Management and more particularly due to change
of law and policy by the Govt. of India due to security
reasons, which is beyond the control of the
management.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government
of India changed its policy regarding airlines and as per
DGCA Circular No. 7/2007 dated 28th September, 2008, the
airlines operators or any other ground handling service
providers not covered by the policy shall not be allowed to
undertake self-handling or third party handling with effect
from 01st January, 2009.
3. It is respectfully submitted that due to the change
in Government Policy, the Management was forced to
retrench/terminate its ground handling staff/operator at
IGI Airport, New Delhi and when the Airlines was not
allowed to undertake the said job, as such the Management
being not authorized the above job, being foreign airlines,
was not in entitled to let the Employee continue with his
employement in contravention of the Policy passed by the
Government of India in this regard hence the Management
was constrained to issue Termination Letter to all its
employees who were engaged in the job of ground handling
and operator at IGI Airport. The said policy of the
Government clearly provided that the airlines operator or
any other ground handling service providers not covered
by this policy shall not be allowed to undertake self-
handling or third party handling with effect from January,
01, 2009. The copy of Circular No. 4/2007 and 7/2007 and 7/
2007 issued by the Govt. of India in this regard is enclosed
herewith as Annexure-”A”.
4. It is also respectfully submitted that the Workman
was appointed vide Employment Agreement dated 25th
November, 2003 executed between Airlines (Management)
and Workman, wherein the Workman was appointed as
Operator on Probation basis w.e.f. 1st January, 2004 for a
period of six months from the date of joining, which may be
extended for any such period which shall be deemed to be
the extended Probationary Period. Copy of Employment
Agreement is annexed as Annexure “B”.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7055
5. That as per the terms and conditions of the
Employment Agreement, the Employee’s Contract may be
terminated by either side without assigning any reason
thereof and by giving seven days/one month’s notice to
the other party in writing or payment in lieu thereof.
6. That the Workman has signed the above said
Employment Agreement and accepted it’s all terms and
conditions.
7. That the Management due to change of Policy by
the Government of India as mentioned above and as per
terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement, on
23rd July, 2008 issued a Letter of Termination by one month
notice as required under the agreement w.e.f. 23rd August,
2008, wherein the Workman was informed that his services
were not required in future by Airline/Management and
the said Letter of Termination shall be deemed to constitute
a Written Notice (one month’s).
8. That during the course of mediation, the above
facts were appraised to the Employee and the concerned
mediation authority and in fact the Management offered to
help the employee in getting employment in other institution
on similar terms of his service, to which he refused.
9. That the Management has come to know that the
Employee has already in employment of other organization
and the Management carves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal
place proof the same on record at appropriate stage of
proceeding.
PARAWISE REPLY
1-2 That the contents of Para No. 1 and 2 of the
Statement of Claim as stated are totally wrong and denied
as incorrect. In reply thereof it is submitted that the
Employee was appointed by the Management vide his
Employment Agreement dated 25th November, 2003 as
Operator on Probation basis only w.e.f. 1st January, 2004
and not w.e.f. 09.10.1996 as alleged and any averment
contrary to the same are wrong and denied as incorrect.
The Turkmenistan Airlines is separate entity from that of
Aerosvit Airlines and merely sharing office with the that
Airlines does constitute that the Employee was employed
with Aerosvit Airlines (Management herein) as well. Which
fact is evident from the terms of Employment Agreement
25th November, 2003 where under the Employee was
employed with Management on Probation basis for a period
of six months from the date of joining, and not absorbed
from the employment of Turkmenistan Airlines. It is
respectfully submitted that alleged identity cards referred
to para under reply are not his identity cards but only a
Airport Entry pass, without which the Employee could not
enter into IGI Airport. The said Entry pass are issued for
security reasons and under the rules and regulations and
authority of BCAS (Bureau of Civil Aviation Security) an
Instrumentality of the Govt. of India. It is pertinent to
mention here that from the bare perusal of both Airport
Entry Passes it is evident that Airport Entry Pass Bearing
PIC No. N01005573D pertains to Turkmenistan Airlines
(Valid upto 31.12.2004) whereas another Airport Entry Pass
pertain to Aerosvit Airlines (Management herein and valid
upto 31.12.2009). Furthermore from the terms of the
Employment Agreement it is evident that the Employee
was employed with the Management on probation basis
which continued till the date of his termination due to the
reason stated in under the preliminary submissions/
objection hereinabove which are not repeated here for the
sake of brevity and the same may kindly be read as part
and parcel of the present reply.
3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the Statement of
claim as stated are wrong and denied as incorrect. It is
wrong to allege that the Employee was terminated by the
Management suddenly and without any information. It is
respectfully submitted that the Emplyee was duly informed
by the Management vide its letter dated 23.07.2008 under
which the Employee was informed about his termination
by giving one month notice. As already submitted
hereinabove, the employment of the Employee was
terminated by the Management in terms of his employment
agreement and due to the Policy of the Govt. of India in
this regard. In further support of para under reply the
Management seeks leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to refer
the contents of preliminary submissions/objections which
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity and the same
may kindly be read as part and parcel of the para under
reply.
4-5 That the contents of para No. 4 and 5 of the
Statement of Claim under reply are wrong and denied as
incorrect. It is vehemently denied that the Employee
continuously works with the Management for about 12
years as alleged or the Management never gave any
benefits of his employment as alleged. As already stated
hereinabove, the Employee was employed with the
Management on probation basis only w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and
continued under extended probation till his employment
was terminated by the Management with effect from
23.08.2008 due to the reasons as stated above and during
such period he was provided all benefits of employment as
per the terms of his employment agreement.
6-8 The the contents of para No. 6 to 8 of the
Statement of Claim are worng and denied for want of
knowledge. The Employee be put to strict proof thereof.
7056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
However, without prejudice in reply thereof it is submitted
that after being relieved from the employment of
Management, the Employee joined the employment of other
organization and the factum of his subsequent employment
has not been disclosed by the Employee for the reason
best known to him. The Management seeks leave of this
Hon’ble Tribunal to place proof in this regard at an
appropriate stage of proceedings.
9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the Statement of
Claim are matter of records hence need no reply of the
Management.
10. That the contents of para No. 10 of the Statement
of Claim are wrong and denied as incorrect. The employee
be put to strict proof thereof. The Management has neither
sent any false or frivolous reply nor ever harassed the
employee in any manner whatsoever. In further support of
para under reply the Management seeks leave of this
Hon’ble Tribunal to refer to the contents of preliminary
submissions/objections and preceding paras of reply which
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
11. That the contents of para No. 11 of the Statement
of Claim are wrong and denied as incorrect. As already
submitted hereinabove the Employee entered into
Employment Agreement with the Management as Operator
w.e.f. 01.01.2004 on probation basis and in terms of the said
agreement and any averment made contrary to the same
are totally wrong even to the knowledge of the Employee.
In further support of para under reply the Management
seeks leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to refer to the contents
of preliminary submissions/objection and preceding paras
of reply which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
12. That the contents of para No. 12 of the Statement
of Claim are totally wrong and denied as incorrect. The
Employee be put to strict proof thereof.
13. That the contents of para No. 13 of the Statement
of Claim are totally wrong and denied as incorrect It is
vehemently denied that the Management has committed
any alleged attitude. As already submitted hereinabove
due to the change of Policy of the Govt. of India under
circular No. 4/2007 and 7/2007 the Management, being
foreign airlines was not allowed to carry out its ground
handling services or appoint its own loader or operator in
this regard at IGI Airport w.e.f. 01.01.2009 and such services
were to be undertaken by the Govt. approved vendors
alone as per the requirement of the above circulars, as
such the employment of the Employee with the Management
as operator had become redundant for which the
Management cannot be faulted with. In further support of
para under reply the Management seeks leave of this
Hon’ble Tribunal to refer to the contents of preliminary
submissions/objections and preceding paras of reply which
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
In view of the submission made hereinabove it is
respectfully submitted that the alleged claims of the
Employee against the Management are wrong,
misconceived and are therefore denied.
In the premises, it is respectfully prayed that the
Employment is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and
the Claim of the Employee be dismissed with cost.
Claimant/Workman filed replication on 11.09.12.
Wherein he stated as follows:—
1. The Para No. 1 of the preliminary objections of the
written statement of the Management is wrong and denied
hence not admitted. It is worthwhile to mention here that
the claim of the employee is maintainable in the eye of law
and the contract in question does not gave freedom to any
employer to throw out any employee at any stage.
2. That Para No. 2 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence not admitted. The policy in question never
directed to any airlines to not to compensate any employee.
3. That Para No. 3 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence not admitted. The detail given in para No. 2
may kindly be read as part and parcel of reply of
Para No. 3.
4. That Para No. 4 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is worng and
denied hence not admitted. The employee worked under
the supervision of the defendant but they never provide
any facility like P.F., E.S.I. to the employee and at throw out
the employee without any claim or compensation. The
above mentioned act of the defendant is wrong an illegal
and against the natural justice.
5. That Para No. 5 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence not admitted. The defendant has misused
the condition of the agreement.
6. That Para No. 6 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence not admitted. The employee was asked to
sign some paper by saying that these are mandatory for
working with defendants. He was never told about the
conditions of the agreement. It is worthwhile to mention
here that the claimant does not know much about English
and the agreement was executed by the defendants in
English with bad intention.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7057
7. That Para No. 7 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence and admitted. The defendants never issued
any notice to the employee.
8. That Para No. 8 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence not admitted. It is specifically denied that the
defendants ever offered to the employee in getting
employments in other institution on similar terms
of his servie. The defendants never gave any offered like
this.
9. That Para No. 9 of the Preliminary objections of
the written statement of the Management is wrong and
denied hence not admitted. The defendants should prove
the allegation made.
Replication Para wise:—
1. That the Para No. 1 and 2 of the written statement
is wrong and denied and not admitted. The true facts are
described above.
2. That Para No. 3 of the written statement is wrong
and denied and not admitted. The defendants made false
story no notice was served to the employee.
3. That Para No. 4 and 5 of the written statement is
wrong and denied and not admitted. The employee served
with defendants for 12 years he was never given any facility
as alleged.
4. That Para No. 6 and 8 of the written statement is
wrong and denied and not admitted. The plaintiff lost the
very important 12 years of his life with defendants and
now he started with a new point of his life. The Life of the
employee was totally destroyed by the defendants.
5. That the Para No. 9 needs no reply.
6. That Para No. 10 of the written statement is wrong
and denied and not admitted.
7. That Para No. 11 of the written statement is wrong
and denied and not admitted. The facts are described in
Para No. 6 of the reply of Preliminary objections.
8. That the Para 12 needs no reply.
9. That Para No. 13 of the written statement is wrong
and denied and not admitted. The said policy did not bound
any management to not to compensate any employee who
had served to the management.
The prayer Para of the written statement is wrong
and denied an not admitted. The employee is fully entitled
to get relief as mention in the claim petition.
On 11/9/2002 my Ld. Predecessors mentioned in order
sheet as follows:—
It is submitted from both sides that no issue other
than one mentioned in the reference is necessary in this
case. That being the position, let evidence be lead. Now,
for evidence of the workman by way of affidavit, to come
up on 20.12.2012.
In support of his case workman WW1 Shri Kishan Kumar
filed his affidavit on 24/6/2013. Where in he mentioned
as follows:—
1. That the deponent joined the department of the
respondents/management on 09.10.1996 at Turkamanistan
Airlines sand started working on the post of Loader.
Thereafter the deponent was promoted on the post of
operator and he was transferred in Aerosvit Airlines on
25.11.2003 as both the airlines are working together as well
as the offices of the both was same.
2. That the deponent has been working sincerely
and devotedly in the department of the respondent. The
date of joining of the deponent is 09.10.1996 and Identity
Card is EX WW1/1 was also issued to the deponent by the
respondent of Turkmanistan Airlines as the deponent was
posted on the post of Loader which are relied by him.
Further a new identify card Ex WW1/2 was issued to the
deponent in the year 2007 and the same was valid upto
31.12.2009.
3. That on 23.07.2008 suddenly without any
information, the respondent sent a termination letter Ex
WW 1/3 to the deponent stating therein that the respondent
is no more required the services of the deponent in future.
4. That the deponent continuously worked with both
the Airlines of the respondent for about 12 years honestly,
punctually but the respondent never gave any benefit of
P.F., ESI to the deponent and respite the best services
given by the deponent, the respondent terminated the
employee without giving any reason or further information.
5. That the salary of the deponent was Rs. 62,00 per
month at the time of termination and except the above salary
he was not provided any of the above stated benefits
throughout his service.
6. That the deponent is very poor person and he is
the sole bread earner of his family as the whole family is
totally dependent upon him and it is now more than
3 years of termination, the deponent and his family members
are facing a great hardship as it can be said that the deponent
is his hand to mouth or in other sence it can be said that the
employee and his family is on the verge of starvation.
7058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. That the deponent is married and having two
children including 3 married sister and the education
expenses of his two children more than 2500 right now. The
deponent is also having a policy in which he has to deposit
Rs. 16,000 per annum and now it is very much difficult for
the deponent to afford all the above mentioned expenses.
8. That due to the termination by the respondent
and above mentioned circumstances the deponent goes
into depression, mental pain and agony and further due to
tension many times the deponent started quarreling with
his wife and parents. It is also worthwhile to mention here
that at the time of termination of the deponent the
respondent did not gave the one month salary to the
deponent for which he deserves.
9. That the deponent have also sent a letter to
the Chief Minister of Delhi. The copy of said letter is
Ex. WW 1/4.
10. That the deponent at last filed the present case
against the respondent and the respondent had sent a
false and frivolous reply to the deponent, alleging false
and fabricated facts in the said reply. The respondent is
alleging false facts in their reply only to harass the poor
deponent.
11. That it has been stated in the reply by the
respondent that at the time of joining the deponent executed
an agreement which is totally false as the deponent never
being served with any agreement or had never signed any
agreement. However, if there is any document signed by
the deponent are without the knowledge and full
information to the deponent. It is further stated that if any
documents were signed only on the good faith of the
respondent but the respondent has illegally, unlawfully
terminated the poor deponent.
12. That due to the adamant attitude and not
appointing the deponent .
Further on service the respondent committed an
unfair practice which is wrong and illegal and against the
natural justice.
13. That the deponent is entitled to get P.F., gratuity
etc. including medical facilities which were not given to the
deponent as well the termination of the deponent is liable
to be set aside.
14. That the affidavit is drafted as per my instructions
and read over to me in simle Hindi and I put my signatures
on it after understanding it to be correct.
Alongwith affidavit he annexed 6 photocopies of
certain papers.
Same day he examined himself for tendering his
affidavit and paper annexed in his affidavit.
He was partly cross-examined by Geeta Mahlotra.
A/R for the Management.
Cross-Examination is as follows :
I was appointed as a loader by the Turkiministan
Airlines of 09.10.996. No appointment letter was issued by
them in my favour. Copy of promotion was also not issued
in my favour. On 25.11.2003, my services were transferred
to Aerosvit Ukrainian Airlines. Letter Transferring my
services to the aforesaid employer was not issued in my
favour. It is correct that Turkiministan Airlines and Aerosvit
Ukrainian Airlines are two different organizations. Vol.
office of these two organizations were at one and the same
premises and maintenances services were carried on by
one and the same set of persons and equipments were
being exchanged by the two organizations. It is incorrect
that maintenance services were not carried on by one and
the same set of persons equipment were not being
exchanged by the two organization. It is correct that I joined
my services with the management, that is Aerosvit
Ukrainian Airlines on 01.01.2004 Vol. I joined my services
in the said organization on 25.11.2003. I was made to sign a
form for issuance of pass.
I am senior secondary pass. I have studies English
also. Ex. WW1/M1 bears my signature at Point A. Ex. WW1/
M1 was signed by me after issuance of a pass in my favour.
It is correct that there is stipulation in Ex. WW1/M1 that it
is effective from 01.01.2004, though signed on
25.11.2003.When I signed Ex. WW1/M1, my salary was
Rs. 4400.00 per month. I have not challenged Ex. WW1/M1
till date. Vol. Copy Ex. WW1/M1 was not supplied to me.
Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/4 are entry passes. These are not
identity cards. Ex. WW1/5 was received by me by post.
The management is not carrying out self ground handling
services, since the termination of my services. I am not
aware as to when circular Ex. WW1/M2 was issued. It is
incorrect that at the time of termination of my services, I
was told that on account of change of the policy of the
Government relating to ground handling services, the
management cannot continue with my service. About 31
persons were bade farewell alongwith me. The management
had not offered alternative job to me. It is incorrect that
alternative job was offered to me by the management.
Retrenchment compensation was not paid to me. Vol.
my one month’s salary has not been paid by the
management to me till date. Further cross examination of
the witness is deferred Ms. Geeta wants to put facts,
through documents, relating to payment of retrenchment
compensation to the witness.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7059
Further cross-examination was deferred to 1/08/2013
Geeta Mahlotra. A/R for the management made a
endorsement on for Sheet to the effect.
“No instructions received from management, so
unable to cross further the workman”.
Management in support of its case produced no
evidence.
WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEE
1. That the employee is very poor persons and he is
unable to hire a counsel for him, hence he is carrying on his
case/application proceedings in person. The employee is
not having the proper knowledge about the legal
proceedings of drafting etc. of the case. Hence, the liberal
view may kindly be taken regarding the technicality and
drafting of the application, evidence and other proceedings
filed by the employee. The facts of the present case are
mentioned as below:
2. That the employee joined service 09.10.1996 at
Turkmanistan Airlines and starts working on the post of
loader and further after giving him promotion on 25.11.2003,
the respondents transferred him in Aerosvit Airlines on
the post of Airlines operator as both the airlines are working
together as well as the offices of both the Airlines was the
same. A Identity Card was also issued to the employee
which is placed on file as document Ex. WW1/1 and New I
card was also issued to the employee in the year 2007
which is also placed on file as document EX. WW1/2. It is
clear from the perusal from the document EX. WW1/2. that
it was valid till 31/12/2009.
3. That the employee was working with the
respondents sincerely and devotedly and no complaint
was pending against the employee regarding his work.
Although he was permute from the post of loader to the
post of Airlines Operator due to his work efficiency.
4. That on 23/07/2008 suddenly without any
information, the respondents sent a illegal termination letter
EX. WW1/3 to the employee stating therein that the
respondent is no more required the service of the employee
in future. The said termination letter sent by the respondent
is illegal and against the provisions of law and not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. That the employee continuously works with both
of the Airlines of respondent for about 12 years honestly,
punctually but the Management/respondent never gave
any benefit of P.F., ESI to the employee and despite the
best services given by the employee the Management/
respondent terminated the employee without giving any
further intimation.
6. That the salary of the employee was Rs. 6200/- per
month at the time of termination and expect the above said
salary, he was not provided any of the benefits as stated
above throughout his services.
7. That the employee is a very poor person and is the
sole bread earner of his family as the whole family is totally
depend upon him and it is now more than about 3 years of
termination the employee and his family members are facing
a great hardship as it can be said that the employee is his
hand to the mouth or in order sense it can be said that the
employee in his hand to the mouth or in order sense it can
be said that the employee and his family is one the verge of
starvation.
8. That it is further pertinent to mention here that the
employee is married and is having two children including 3
married sisters and the education expenses of his two
children is more than Rs. 1900/- per month and the employee
is ready to produced the documents of fees, if required by
this Hon’ble Court. The employee is also having a policy
in which he has to deposit Rs. 16,000/- per annum and now
it is very much difficult for the employee to afford all the
above said.
9. That it has been stated in their reply that at the
time of joining there executed a Agreement between the
employee and the Management/repondent which is totally
false as the employee had never being served with any
agreement or had signed any agreement. However, if there
are any documents signed by the employee are without
the knowledge and full information to the employee. It is
further stated that if any documents were signed by the
employee, those were signed only on the good faith of the
Management/respondent but the Management/respondent
has illegally, unlawfully terminated the poor employee.
10. That the termination of the employee is illegal
and against the natural justice. The alleged guidelines of
DGCA does not compel any Airline company to throw out
his workers against the provisions of law. The appointment
of the employee was not subjected to the guidelines of
DGCA. The defense taken by the respondent is wrong and
illegal and sustainable.
It is, there, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to pass an award in favour of the
employee and against the Management/respondent
directing them to take the employee on service and to
provide him all the benefits i.e. P.F., gratuity etc. including
the Medical facilities alongwith increments which were till
date not given by the respondent. Any other relief which
the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be granted
in favour of the employee keeping in view the above facts.
7060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the light of oral contentions and written arguments
of workman/claimant I perused the pleadings of the parties,
Issues and evidence led by parties.
Perusal of evidence on record shows that claimant/
workman in support his case produced his oral and
documentary evidence. In which he produced himself as
WW1. He was partly cross-examined on 24/06/13 by
Ms. Geeta Mahlotra Ld. A/R for Management and his cross-
examination was deferred for 1/08/13. Thereafter she made
an endorsement on order-sheet 1/08/13 to the effect “No
instruction to further cross-examine the WW1 Krishan
Kumar”. Thereafter she refused to further cross-examine
the WW1 Krishan Kumar.
It is relevant to mention here that management has
not appointed any other A/R to conduct its case on behalf
of Management since 1/08/13. Nor any Pairokar etc. on
behalf of management came to attend the proceeding in
this old I.D. No. 31/11. Since 1st date of cross-examination
of WW1 i.e. 24/06/13.
It is also relevant to mention here that management
in support of its case produced no evidence. Although
burden to prove question of Adjudication referred to this
Tribunal lies on management. On behalf of management-
No oral or written argument were advanced.
In the light of contentions of workman/claimant I
perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the
point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which
shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence
wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the
facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.
In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr
Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that reinstatement of workman with continuity of
service and 25% back wages was not proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case and the compensation of
Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends
of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award of
reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers
has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead
compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgements,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement
is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal
or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited
Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme Court
held thus,”grant of relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not
automatic, Grant of back wages is also not automatic”.
Workman of the instant case was not appointment
by following due procedure and as per rules. He had
rendered service with the respondent as a casual worker,
thus. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand
only) by way of damages as compensation to the workman/
claimant by Management after expiry of period of limitation
of available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends
of Justice.
Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman and
against Management.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated -18-11-2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2757-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 96 dk 2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@188@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh-I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi the 11th December, 2013
S.O. 2757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management TISCO of and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/12/2013
[No. L-20012/188/2003-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. 96 of 2003
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7061
PARTIES:
Employer in relation to the management of West Bokaro
Colliery of M/s. TISCO and their workmen.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workmen: Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the Management: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Adv.
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th 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-20012/188/03-IR (C-I) dt. 28.08.2003.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Tisco workers union
from the management of West Bokaro Colliery
Washing Plant of M/s. Tisco Ltd. to upgrade 167
warkmen (as per list) from Gr. "D" (Tech.) to Gr. "C"
(Tech.) is justified? If so to what relief are the workmen
entitled and from what date?."
2. The case of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
Workers Union for 167 workmen (as per enclosed list) is
that the TISCO has been carrying on its mining operations
at West Bokaro Colliery as also at Jamadoba Colliery at
Jamadoba in District: Dhanbad, in addition to handling a
Washing Plant at Ghatotand (Hazaribagh). The post of
Fitter-cum-Operator both at West Bokaro Collieris and that
of Jamadoba Washing Plant, both of the Management of
TISCO are inter exchangeable, and the payments are made
by the TISCO in the same scale. The management of TISCO
at both the Collieries and the Washing Plants at both places
are controlled by the Head Quarters of TISCO.
In view of the fact that the workmen with same
qualifications working at the Washing Plant, Jamadoba,
doing the same job of the same nature of duty were given
upgraded scale of grade (Technical) knows as F.C.O.
Category V and VI respectively as per the Award dt.
10.04.1979 of the Tribunal concerned in their reference which
was upheld by the Orders dt. 09.09.89 and 6.2.96 by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court in the C.W.J.C. No. 1980(R) and
L.P.A. No. 79/1988(R) respectively. Though Mr. S.M.
Sahabuddin of same status was, lateron also given the
aforesaid benefit as per the office Order/Letter No. 6472 dt.
1/12.3.1997. The present workmen (Fitter-cum-Operators)
working at the Washing Plant, West Bokaro Collieries,
Ghatotand, demanded from the General Manager of the
TISCO for same treatment, payment and upgradation of
Grade 'C' scale of Fitter-cum-Operator, even twice demanded
on 22.5.1999 from the management to initiate the conciliation
of the Industrial Dispute raised by the workmen before the
Labour Commissioner. But the failure in the conciliation
resulted in the reference to the Tribunal for an adjudication
in it. The workmen as Fitter-cum-Operator at Ghatotand,
Hazaribagh under the same employment of TISCO are
entitled to upgradation from 'C' and 'D' (Technical) to Grade
'C' Technical as given to the counterpart of the Washing
Plant, Jamadoba by the TISCO itself. As both the Mines
and Washeries belong to the same management of TISCO,
which can not be allowed to discriminate its employees on
the basis of places of duties. The workmen of Ghatotand
also entitled to the benefit of the upgraded scale of Fitter-
cum-Operator Grade 'C' w.e.f. 1982 as given to their
counterpart of Jamadoba and also to upgrade scale of
Grade-C (Technical) w.e.f. 1982 with all arrears of wages
and consequential benefits. The demand of the workmen
concerned is genuine and justified.
3. The Union Representative for the workmen in its
rejoinder specifically denying all allegations of the
management has to state that the reference to allege it as
Cadre Scheme for Coal Washery is irrelevant for an
adjudication of the case, and the claim of the concerned
workmen is based on the alleged Cadre Scheme. By alleged
Implementation Instruction No. 6 on dt. 8.7.86 or alleged
Cadre Scheme can not supercede the existing Cadre
Scheme; and an Award has been implemented. Any circular
or Cadre Scheme in violation of the Award dt. 10.4.79 was
illegal and void abinitio. As per the Award all the workmen
are entitled to upgradation Grade 'C' (Technical) with
retrospective effect with all arrears of wages and
consequential benefits.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the Opp./
Management with categorical denials is that the reference
is unmaintainable in law or in facts . The Union being
unrecognised and non functional in Washing Plant or in
any of the establishments of West Bokaro Division has no
locus standi to riase the I.D. for the workmen. As discussion
over Cadre Scheme for Coal Washing Personnel at the
meeting of the promotion Policy Committee held on Dec. 4
and 5, 1985 and March, 19 and May, 20, 1986 finalised at
the meeting on June, 19 and 20, 1986, it was also agreed the
Member Secretary, JBCCI might issue Implementation
Instruction in this respect. Thereafter as per the
Implementation Instruction (I.I.) No. 60 dated 8.7.1986
issued by the J.B.C.C.I., the Cadre Scheme for Washery
Personnel was circulated and the existing Cadre Scheme, if
any for this discipline shall become inoperative
simultaneously with coming into force of this Scheme. The
Cadre Scheme has been framed on the basis of the
organisational set up prevailing in Coal India and its
7062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
subsidiaries and TISCO, IISCO and SCCL will be allowed
to make modification in the same whenever required to suit
the local condition without lowering the standard of this
Cadre Scheme in consultation with the Union
Representatives at their level. The West Bokaro Colliery
Management circulated a Cadre Scheme for Washery
Personnel in respect of Fitter-cum-Operator with
consultation with the local Union considering the Cadre
Scheme circulated by JBCCI for Fitter-cum-Operator and
maintained the guidelines issued by the JBCCI. As per the
Cadre Scheme, the Fitter-cum-Operators are put under
Categories V, VI and Technical Grade 'C'. The Fitter-cum-
Operator in Category V will be promoted as Fitter-cum-
Operator in Category VI as per the recommendation of the
Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of
interviews Likewise, the Fitter-cum-Operator, Category VI
will be promoted in Grade Tech. 'C' as per Cadre Scheme
only on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion
Committee after holding Trade Test. So the demand of the
Union for the workmen for upgradation of Fitter-cum-
Operator of Grade 'D' to Fitter-cum-Operator Grade 'C' being
in quite violation of the Cadre Scheme circulated by JBCCI
is illegal and unjustified. They are not entitled to any relief.
5. The Opp./Management in its rejoinder has
categorically denied the allegation of the Union/workmen,
and stated that as Mr. S.M. Sahabuddin was one of the
awardees in the Reference No. 27/1978 of the C.G.I.T. No. 1,
the benefit of the said award was also granted to him. The
washing plant of Jamadoba and the Washing Plant of West
Bokaro Collieries are two different establishments with
different working conditions. It is alleged that the aforesaid
Award was passed on July 10, 1979 for specific workmen
and against the particular establishment prior to the
Implementation Instruction No. 60 dated 8.7.1986 and the
Cadre Scheme for Coal Washing Personnel was formulated
by JBCCI with consultation of all the Central Trade Unions
in the year 1986. The workmen concerned are placed in a
particular category according to the Cadre Scheme
formulated by JBCCI. The aforesaid Award is not binding
upon the Management of West Bokaro Colliery.
FINDING WITH REASONING
6. In the present Reference WWI A.K. Ganguli one
of the workmen for the Union deposed on behalf of the all
of them, and MWI Vinay Pandey for the management.
According to WWI A.K. Ganguli (Sl. No. 8 of the workmen's
list enclosed), the workmen are posted at West Bokaro
Colliery under TISCO, they were upgraded in Technical
Grade 'D' in Fitter-cum-Operator in 1982, and also placed in
Technical Grade E, and whereas the post of Fitter-cum-
Operator comes under Technical Grade 'C' which was given
to some workmen of Jamadoba Colliery under TISCO over
Self same nature of claim who were provided the Grade 'C'
as per the award passed in their favour by the Tribunal No.
1, marked as Ext. W. 1, the Certified Copy thereof the Award
is alleged to have been filed, but only the photocopy of the
Award dated 10th July, 1979, rather the Certified Copy of
the Judgement dated 6th Feb., 1996 passed by Hon'ble
High Court concerned in the L.P. A. No. 79/1988(R) against
the Judgement and order dated 9.9.88 passed by Hon'ble
Single Bench in CWJC No. 7/1980(R) which has been marked
as Ext. W. 1 instead of the said Award. However, it stands
no differences at the point of implementation of the Award
concerning workmen of Jamadoba as admitted on behalf of
the O.P./Manangement. As such the witness for the Union
has claimed for their upgradation and relief based on the
award. The witness (WWI) has admitted that the said Award
related to workmen posted at Washery Plant under Jharia
Division. But he expressed his ignorance of whether
Jamadoba and West Bokaro Colliery are in seperate division
or in the same direction, the time of passing the said Award
and its applicability to them and whether the post of Fitter-
cum-Operator comes under Cadre Scheme as per JBCCI
Circular No. 60/1986, and or if the Cadre Scheme specific
the Grade the Fitter-Operator would get, or if their properly
placement under Grade 'E' by the Management as per the
Cadre Scheme.
7. Whereas the statement of MWI Vinay Pandey, Sr.
Manager (HR/IR) for the management is that the Cadre
Scheme was finalised at the meeting of the Promotion Policy
Committee held on March, 19 and May, 20, 1986, and it was
also agreed that the Member Secretary, JBCCI might issue
Implementation Instruction in that respect. Therefore, the
Implementation Instruction No. 60 dt. 8.7.1986 was issued
by the J.B.C.C.I, and was circulated about the Cadre Scheme
for Coal Washery Personnel. As per the circulation of the
said Cadre Scheme, the existing Cadre Scheme, if any, for
this discipline would become in operative similanteously
with the enforcement of this scheme. The Cadre Scheme
was framed on the basis of Organisational Set up prevailing
in Coal India and its subsidiaries, and TISCO, IISCO and
SCCL were allowed to make modification on the same
whenever required to suit the local condition without
lowering the standard of this Cadre Scheme in consultation
with the Union Representative at their level. The West
Bokaro Colliery Management circulated a Cadre Scheme
for Washery Personnel in respect of Fitter-cum-Operator
in consultation with the local Union considering the Cadre
Scheme and guidelines circulated by the JBCCI for Fitter-
cum-Operator. As per Cadre Scheme the Fitter-cum-Operator
are put in Category V, VI and Technical Grade 'C'. The Fitter-
cum-Operator in Cat. V will be promoted as Fitter-cum-
Operator in Cat. VI on the recommendation of the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on the basis of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7063
the interview. Accordingly, the Fitter-cum-Operator in
Category VI will be promoted to Technical Gr. 'C' as per the
Cadre Scheme only on the recommendation of Departmental
Promotion Committee after holding Trade Test. The said
Cadre Scheme came into operation in West Bokaro Colliery
in 1986. Under the Scheme there were three Grades of FCOs-
Grades V, VI and Technical Grade 'C', and accordingly, all
those FCOs who had completed three years were promoted
to Grade VI, and thereafter to Technical Grade 'C' on
completion of their 4 years as FCOs in Grade VI. According
to the Management Witness (MWI), three worken Sukash
Kumar, Sidh Nath Kumar and Sridhar Koiri were promoted
to Technical Grade 'C' as per the Official Letters of the
Management (dt. 4.11.1998 to 17.7.2002) and 10.8.1999- Ext.
M.1 series with objection respectively which were accepted
by them.
8. Further the statement of MWI is that after the
Cadre Scheme since its implementation and acceptance as
per agreement at national level was duly operated and
accepted for 7 years till then all FCOs were promoted to
Grade 'C', the demand of the sponsoring union for
upgradation of Fitter-cum-Operator of Grade 'D' to that of
'C' is quite violative of the Cadre Scheme and the guidelines
issued by the JBCCI, as the establishments of both the
Collieries are different as well as in their operational
parameters having difference in the quality of the Coal in
both the Collieries. Since S.M. Sahabuddin was in Grade B
and one of the workmen concerned of Jamadoba related to
the Award concerned, so he was given the benefit of Grade
'C' The witness (MWI) in his cross examination has affirmed
that the Tata Company does not follow the provision of
NCWA, as it has its own Cadre Scheme for promotion of its
employees, and for giving dependant employment, and
the Circular of the JBCCI relating to its prevailing over the
existing scheme of the Colliery can be filed. With the
enforcement of the JBCCI Circular, the management has
framed its own Cadre Scheme perhaps in the year 1986 for
the promotion of its employees. The Tata company was a
member of the JBCCI for the period from March to June,
1985. Though the JBCCI Instruction No. 60 dt. 8.7.1986
was issued to all the Coal Companies to implement the
promotion policy as fremed by JBCCI except the Tata
Company which was given an option for its own Cadre.
Though the owner of both the coal Washeries as the Tata
Company, they are seperate Establishments of the company
through transfer of workmen from Jamadoba to West
Bokaro does not usually happen except in rare cases such
that of Mr. Sahabuddin. The wages scale is the same in
both washeries. In view of the Award passed in Ref. No.
27/98 by the CGIT-LC (NO. 1), Dhanbad concerning
Jamadboa workmen there was no sineority between the
workmen of both coal washeries.
9. Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Learned Counsel for the
Union/workmen submits that in the present reference the
claim of the workmen is the Technical Grade C in the ground
of their working as Fitter-cum-Operator; it is based on the
said Award passed in the Ref. No. 27/1978, in which the
workmen of Jamadoba had demanded forTechnical Grade
C on the ground of that the Electro Machanics were getting
Grade 'C'. It is also submitted in his behalf that the
management is a member neither of NCWA nor JBCCI and
the management has not filed its own Cadre Scheme and if
there is any alleged JBCCI Instruction as alleged JBCCI
Instruction as alleged to have been followed by the
Management, the said Award of the Tribunal is binding
upon the management; so these workmen are entitled to
Technical Grade 'C'.
10. Whereas in response, Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.
Counsel for the OP/Management has contended that
admittedly the present 167 workmen belong to West Bokaro
Colliery Plant of M/s. Tisco Ltd., so their claim is based on
the said Award of 1979 in Ref. No. 27/78 related to workmen
of Jamadoba Colliery is unsustainable likewise the Award
is not binding upon the management, as the both collieries
are different establishments of the Management, which
has its own independent existence for its Cadre Scheme for
the Collieries as per the Instruction No. 60 and guidelines
of the JBCCI. Moreover as per Implementation Instruction
introduced in 1986, there are three Grades, namely,
categories V, VI and 'C' for which the promotion is effected
through Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). In
support of his argument, Mr. Verma has relied upon the
case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Ors
reported in (2007) 2 S.C.C. (L & S) 398 (A) (D.B.). The facts
of the ruling is that there were posts of Meter Reader and
Shift Incharge in Electricity Department concerned; pay
scale of Shift Incharge was higher than that of Meter Reader
17 Seniormost Shift Incharge opted to become Meter
Readers for certain reasons, and their higher pay scale was
protected purely as on adhoc measure which was to be
personal to them, but certain other Meter Readers who
were similarly situated raised the dispute before Industrial
Tribunal, which also granted benefits of higher pay to them;
direction in said Award confirmed only to those who were
in service at the relevant time, i.e., before cut off date, and
said employees, thus, formed a class by themselves, and
as the Respondents have been appointed after the cut off
date, so it was held that they could not be treated alike with
others; hence, their claim for higher pay scale in ground of
party was not sustainable in reference to Arts. 39(d) & 14
of the Constitution of India (Paras 11 to 13).
11. On perusal and consideration of the materials on
the case record, I find the fracts as under:
7064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Firstly admittedly, the 167 workmen belong to West
Bokaro Colliery and the 45 Awardee workem as per the
Award dt. 10th July, 1979 passed in Ref. No. 27/278 were of
Jamadoba Washing Plant. Though both collieris have their
different establishments, yet they are under the same
TISCO Management;
Secondly: The aforesaid Award being in person was
binding upon the TISCO Management in respect of its
concerned 45 awardee workmen of Jamadoba Washing
Plant only.
Thirdly, The TISCO has its own independent
industrial establishment having its own Certified Standing
Orders under Sec. 5 (3) of the Industrial Employment
Standing Orders Act, 1946. As per the Implementation
Instruction No. 60 dt. 8.7.1986 (hereinafter referred to as
I.I.No.) issued time to time by the JBCCI related to
Implementation of the Agreement, over promotion Policy
Committee specifies as such:
"It was also agreed that Member Secretarty III JBCCI
may issue implementation Instruction in this
respect."
The I.I.No. under its cause of 'Repeal, Saying etc.
lays down as under:
"(i) The existing Cadre Scheme if any, for this
discipline shall become in-operative
simultaneously with the coming into force of
this Scheme.
(ii) This Cadre Scheme has been framed on the basis
of the organisational set up prevailing in Coal
India and its subsidiaries and TISCO, IISCO &
SCCL will be allowed to make modification in
the same whenever required to suit the local
condition without lowering the standard of this
cadre scheme in consultation with the Union
Representative at their level."
All the aforesaid facts evidently corroborate the
proved fact as stated by MWI Vinay Pandey that the Tata
Company is not bound to follow the provision of NCWA.
Lastly, with the introduction of the present Cadre
Scheme for Coal Washery Personnel (Operational) w.e.f.
8.7.1986 the then Cadre Scheme related the claim of these
workmen for upgradation from Gr. 'D' (Tech.) to Gr. 'C' (Tech.)
simultaneously stood inoperative. Moreover, their such
claim based on the aforesaid Award dt. 10th July, 1979 can
never sustainable in eye of laws and facts both.
In view of the findings, the plea of Mr. Mukherjee,
Learned Counsel for the Union/workmen seems not
plausible.
12. In result, it is adjudicated in the terms of the
reference as such:
It is hereby
ORDERED
That the Award be and the same is passed that the
demand of the TISCO Workers' Union from the
management of the West Bokaro Colliery, Washing
Plant of M/s. TISCO Ltd. to upgrade 167 (as per list)
from Gr. "D" (Tech.) to Gr. "C" is quite unjustified
and baseless. Hence, the workmen are not entitled to
any relief from any date.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
List of Workmen
Sl. No. Name
A.No.
Signature
1 2
3
4
1. V.R. Das
268271
2. S. Samad
095348
3. B.K. Mahanty
095411
4. Rabinbra Sahu
095448
5. Ragunath Ray
268174
6. A.K. Ganguly
268148
7. Johan Moharuru
095459
8. S.K. Bhattacharya
268190
9. G.C. Sutradhar
095693
10. Mantu Bhar
268189
11. Nawal Kishor Singh
268009
12. S.S. Yadav
268007
13. Mauotiar Vishwakarma
268220
14. Prabhat Kumar Pant
266174
15. N. Srinivas Rao
268195
16. S.C. Banik
095612
17. Chonhas Lakra
265759
18. S.K. Rakesh
266170
19. Sri Ram Ojha
263779
20. Amritlal Gops
266465
21. nsopUnjke
268155
22. D.L. Puri
95741
23. Mandip Singh
268005
24. P.D. Prasad
268014
25. ykypUnjke
268175
26. R.N. Rana
268154
27. Prayag Sao
263717
28. Shah Alam
266218
29. Baliram Yadav
268187
30. Sachida Nand Prasad
268272
31. Y.S. Champia
095635
32. Nauleshwar Singh
6156
33. lsjkfQyckM+k
4227
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7065
1
2
3
4
34. B.B. Upadhaya
6518
35. Ganesh Singh
2928
36. Ramachandra Singh
7213
37. Rashid Hussain
8952
38. Rajdeo Pandey
4413
39. Suresh Prasad
8958
40. Y.K. Pandit
8046
41. D. Karmali
7893
42. Amrit Mahto
5417
43. Y.N. Yadav
8158
44. Hiraman Mahto
8173
45. M.K. Jha
268011
46. Anil Kr. Sinha
263846
47. Shambhu Sah
268018
48. Sanju Bhan Singh
268199
49. A.B. Khan
266152
50. Sita Ram
264357
51. Badruddin
264697
52. Raghunandan Pant
263690
53. Ashok Singh
264908
54. Ishtfyaque Ahmed
264359
55. Shashi Bhushan Mishra
263777
56. Ranjeet Singh
766468
57. M.D. Taslim
268177
58. Kishori Vishwakarma
265994
59. O.P. Lama
268164
60. D.N. Giri
264367
61. Anup Kr. Sinha
264318
62. Hira Pal Bhagot
264234
63. S.K. Bose
263801
64. John. A. Horo
96743
65. Hiteshwar fd'kuu
268708
66. B.S. Srivastava
266153
67. R.R. Verma
268957
68. Damoder Prasad
266529
69. Brahmdeo Ram
266467
70. jk;lnho
264279
71. Hanumant Singh
7626
72. Damnik Guria
4233
73. Talo Manjhi
3716
74. R.R. Mandal
8950
75. Sonaram Hurad
95287
76. P. Shene
265599
77. Shyam Mandan Kumar
266161
78. J.K. Sirlal
268047
79. K.G. Pathak
266187
80. C.D. Singh
264194
1
2
3
4
81. M. Topno
96370
82. Chandeswar Singh
26857
83. Madhab Ch. Mahakud
95425
84. A.K. Mohanty
93346
85. Yogendra Jha
264374
86. Deodeep Prasad
269154
87. Munesher Singh
263689
88. Damoder Prasad
263186
89. Ajeet Kumar
268959
90. H.D. Mobarak Ansari
268966
91. Sanjay Kr. Sharma
268951
92. P.C. Vishkarma
268167
93. Harudhan San
263734
94. Jhandu Mahato
263331
95. Ramanand Singh
3752
96. Onkar Nath singh
8960
97. Mobuk
5837
98. C.B. Mishra
3778
99. Rajesh Kr. Singh
9149
100. Nagendra Pd. Singh
263813
101. Deoki Ram
264601
102. S.C. Kumar
268025
103. S.L. Rout
268008
104. Nago Sao
5148
105. N. Saw
3607
106. Jayanto Kr. Ghosh
8961
107. Uday Narayan
6535
108. Deepak Bose
8964
109. Lorance Kojur
3692
110. C.S. Mishra
8021
111. Nasim Khan F/Inch.
263817
112. Phool Chand Ram
266166
114. Ashok Kumar Singh
268064
115. Munshi Vishwakarma
266167
116. Santoshi Mahato
265748
117. Jagan Ram Sharma
266578
118. Chandradeo Yadav
263665
119. Shailinder Patwari
62301
120. Mohiuddin Ansari
263751
121. L.O.P. Narayan
266158
122. Kedar Puri
267490
123. G.P. Thakur
268062
124. S.K. Sarkar
266150
125. P.K. Mandal Foreman
095896
126. S.T.H. Razvi
268004
127. D.K. Sinha
268196
128. Kamleshwar Singh
265538
7066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1 2
3
4
129. R.N. Bhattacharjee
266154
130. Anup Kr. Sinha
268229
131. D.R.P. Das
268016
132. J.K. Sen Gupta
5729
133. Hari Singh
3770
134. M.D. Rajesh
6767
135. Achutanand Singh
6163
136. D.K. Thakur F. Inch.
3818
137. R.R. Thakur Foreman
138. Sodhen Sarkar F.C.T.
268172
139. B.K. Sinha F.C.O.
264986
140. Sridhar Koiry F.C.O.
265543
141. R.P. Singh Foreman
268024
142. P.N.P. Singh F.C.O.
268022
143. Sidhanth Kr. F.C.O
266595
144. B.N. Das par P.C.O.
093096
145. Bali Singh F.C.O.
266165
146. Seopujan Ram F.C.O.
265153
147. Arjun Pd. F.C.O.
268020
148. M. Mahato F/I
93611
149. Rameshwar Rao F.C.O.
265749
150. Santosh Singh F.C.O.
268108
151. Jay Prakash Singh F.C.O.
265752
152. Md. Farooqe F.CO
264694
153. Sucha Singh F.CO
265559
154. Md. Zakiuddin F.C.O.
266145
155. Sunil Khalkho F.C.O.
266146
156. Md. Hussain Forman
095396
157. Pankaj Kr. Sinha F.C.O.
268168
158. Nathu Sharma F.C.O.
268169
159. Harindar Prasad F.C.O.
266173
160. Subhas Ch. F.C.O.
265841
161. vuhy fo'odekZ F.C.O.
268221
162. Bijay Kr. Singh F.C.O.
265534
163. Baldeo Raut F.C.O.
265747
164. A.P. Singh F.C.O.
266160
165. P. Salvam F.C.O.
268171
166. Krishan Kumar F.C.O.
263703
167. Rajendra Singh H. Forman
263839
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 2758.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj likbZVtSV
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
135 dk 2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@23@2013µvkbZvkj ¼lh ,eµI½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2013
S.O. 2758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 135/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Spice Jet Ltd., and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/12/2013.
[No. L-11012/23/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,
DELHI
I.D.No. 135/2013
Shri Wasee Ahmed,
C/o Yadav Apartment, RZB-56,
Flat No. 402, near Gurudwara,
Mahaveer Enclave, Palam,
New Delhi 110045
.......Workmen
Versus
The Vice President (HR),
Spice-Jet Ltd.,
Steel Gole Bus Stop, Terminal I,
I.G.I. Airport,
New Delhi 110037
.........Management
AWARD
Shri Wasee Ahmed joined services with Spice-Jet
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the management) as
Technician on 11.06.2007. He served the management
continuously till 10.05.2012, the date when his services
were dispensed with. He raised a demand for reinstatement
in service, which demand was not conceded to. Ultimately,
he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Since
his claim was contested, hence conciliation proceedings
ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report,
submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication vide order No. L-11012/23/2013/IR (CM-I), New
Delhi dated 13.08.2013 with the following terms:
"Whether action of the management of Spice-Jet
Limited in terminating services of Shri Wasee Ahmed,
S/o Shri Abdul Khalique, ex-Technician, with effect
from 10.5.2012 is justified and legal? To what relief
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7067
the concerned workman is entitled to and from which
date?
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
command the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute.
3. Notice was issued to the claimant calling upon him
to file his claim statement, in response to which notice,
claimant appeared before this Tribunal. He opted not to file
claim statement. On the other hand, he made a statement
detailing therein that he had settled his grievances with
the management, after receipt of a sum of Rs. 50,765.90
towards full and final settlement of his duties Contents of
submissions made by the claimant are reproduced thus:
"I have settled my grievances with the management.
The management had paid a sum of Rs. 50765.90 to
me towards full and final settlement of my dues
towards notice pay, retrenchment compensation,
wages, leave encashment, bonus etc. I have given
up my claim for reinstatement in service with the
management. Now nothing remains due to me from
the management. An award may be passed
accordingly."
4. In view of the above submissions made by Shri
Wasee Ahmed, it emerged over the record that the claimant
had settled his grievances with the management. He had
received a sum of Rs. 50, 765.90 towardes full and final
settlement of his duties for notice pay, retrenchment
compensation, wages, claim towards leave encashment,
bonus etc. He has given up his claim for reinstatement in
service with the management. Resultantly, it is evident that
dispute between the parties has subsided. Claimant is not
entitled to relief of reinstatement in service. An award is,
accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Novermber 22, 2013
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2759.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27 dk
2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@23@2006µvkbZñ vkjñ ¼lh,eµI½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delh, the 11th December, 2013
S.O. 2759.—In pursuance of Section17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 27/2006 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Air India Limited, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/12/2013.
[No. L-11012/23/2006-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI
Present: JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF PRESIDING OFFICER
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-27 OF 2006
Parties
: Employers in relation to the
management of Air India Ltd.
And
Their workman M.J. Kurade
Appearances :
For the Management
: Mr.
Lancy
D'Souza,
Representative
For the Workman
: Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Advocate
Mumbai, dated 04th day of April, 2013
AWARD
This is a reference made by the Central Government
in exericse of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the
schedule are as follows:
"Whether the action of the management of Air India
Limited, Mumbai, in dismissed Shri M.J. Kurade from
the services w.e.f. 15.6.05 is just, fair & legal? If not,
to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
2. As per the order-sheet dated 15.3.2012 the workman
M.J. Kurade has expired. Thereafter learned counsel for
the workman has sought a number of adjourments for filing
application to bring legal representatives of the deceased
workman on record. Learned counsel for the workman has
not filed any such application even today.
3. Since the workman has expired and no application
has been filed to bring his legal representative on record,
therefore, these proceedings abate.
4. Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
7068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2760.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk &1 dh mi èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks
ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr 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`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè
rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys
fuEu jktLo xkao
dkV~Vwj {ks=
¼flM+dks owesUl baMLVªh;y ikdZ½
1- dkV~Vwj
vacRrwj rkyqd
2- osYyuwj
fr:oYywj ftyk
[lañ ,l&38013@80@2013&,lñ,lñ 1]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2760.—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 January, 2014 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 Tamil-Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Kattur area
1. Kattur
(SIDCO Women's
2. Vellanur
Industrial Park)
Ambattur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District
[No. S-38013/80/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T.L. Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2761.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi ?kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk& 77]78]79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k
jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
Øe
jkTkLo xkao dk uke
rglhy dk
ftyk
lñ
uke
1-
gehjx<+ vksT;kM+k
gehjx<
HkhyokMk
r[riqjk] dkU;k [ksMh
[lañ ,l&38013@82@2013&,lñ,lñ 1]
tkWtZdqV~Vh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2761.—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 January, 2014 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-wction (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 Rajasthan nemely:-
Sl.
Name of Village/area
Tehsil
District
No.
1
Hamirgarh, Qjayada,
Hamirgarh
Bhilwara
Takhatpura, Kanya Kheri
[No. S-38013/82/2013-S.S.I]
GEORGEKUTTY T.L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2762.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vf/kfu;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 /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77]78]79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k
jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izoÙk gksaxs vFkkZr~%
Øe
fooj.k
rglhy dk
ftys dk
lñ
uke
uke
1-
ftyk nkSlk] rglhy nkSlk ds
fuEukafdr jktLo xzke ds
vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=%—
ckih] fe=iqjk] Hkkadjh] HkkadjksVk]
nkSlk
nkSlk
fcpyokl] egs'ojk [kqnZ] gfjiqjk]
eksMkiV~Vh] [kqjh dykW] ekyxokl]
jksgMk] [kqjh [kqnZ] lqn'kZuiqjk] pko.MsMk]
jk;iqjk] :xyh] cj[ksMk] Hk.Mkuk]
nysyiqjk thjksrk [kqnZ] fleydh]
thjksrk dykW] nkSlk dykW] ukeksyko]
nkSlk [kqnZ] ck< nkSlk] pd nkSlk]
lqjtiqjk] x.ks'kiqjk] [ksMyh
[lañ ,l&38013@83@2013&,lñ,lñ 1]
tkWtZdqV~Vh Vhñ,yñ] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7069
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2762.—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 January, 2014 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 Seciton 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 Rajasthan namely:—
Sl.No
Particular
Name
Name
of
of
Tehsil
District
1.
The following Revenue Villages
Dausa
Dausa
falling within the limit of Dausa
Tehsil, Distt.- Dausa. Bapi,
Mitrapura, Bhankri, Bhankrota,
Bichalwas, Maheshwara khurd,
Haripura, Modapatti, Khuri Kala,
Malagwas, Rohada, Khuri Khurd,
Sudarshanpura, Chawandeada,
Raipura, Roogli, Barkheda,
Bhandana, Dalelpura, Jirota
Khurd, Simalki, Jirota Kalan,
Dausa Kalan, Namolav, Dausa
Khurd, Bad Dausa, Chak Dausa,
Surajoura,Ganeshpura, Khedli,
[No. S-38013/83/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGE KUTTY T.L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2763.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] dkuiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 101@97 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@87@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 101/97) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Punjab National Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
16/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/87/97 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 101 of 1997
BEWEEN-
Sanjeev Kumar Son of Sri Heera Lal Kanoujia,
resident of 459
Sadar Bazar,
Bareilly U.P.
AND
The Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Regional Office,
156 Civil Lines,
Bareilly.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-12012/87/97/I.R. B-II dated
08.07.97 has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal—
2. Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank Bareilly in terminating the services
of Sanjeev Kumar Kanojia ex-daily paid peon w.e.f.
13.09.95 is legal justified? If not to what relief the
workman is entitled to?
3. The case of the workman is that he continuously
worked as a peon at BI Bazar Branch Bareilly of the
opposite party Punjab National Bank from
December, 86 to 12.09.95 as daily rated worker.
Thereafter his services were terminated in breach of
provisions of section 25F of the Act without payment
of retrenchment compensation and notice pay.
4. Bank has refuted the claim of the workman on the
ground that the workman was not engaged as peon.
Instead he used to be engaged according to need
of work. He did not complete 240 days in any
calendar year and there had been no breach of
section 25F of the Act, accordingly the workman is
not entitled for any relief as claimed by him.
5. Workman has also filed rejoinder in which nothing
new has been mentioned in it.
6. The workman per application dated 11.11.97 has
summoned the documents from the management
viz. 1. Postage Distributing Register for the period
December 1996 to 12.09.95, Payment register for
the above period, Cash Deposit dated 31.07.95,
Extension Counter ASC School dated 07.06.95,
Inward and outward BR Voucher dated 29.05.95 and
Dak Register from December 86 to 12.09.95. The
7070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman has also filed photocopies of the
documents which were duly marked as Ext. W-1 to
Ext. W-48.
7. Whereas the workman examined himself as w.w. 1,
the management examined Sri A.K. Mehrotra as
M.W. 1 in support of their respective cases.
8. After analyzing the factum of the case and evidence
of the parties my learned predecessor after relying
upon the own admission of the opposite party has
categorically held that the workman was working
as a peon in the bank. It was also held that workman
has failed to prove the fact of violation of the
provisions of section 25 F and accordingly answered
the reference vide award dated 13.07.98 against the
workman.
9. The workman assailed the award of the tribunal by
filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30094 of 1998
before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. The
Hon'ble Court vide judgment and order dated
04.04.12 has set aside the award of the tribunal and
remanded back the case to this tribunal for deciding
the matter a fresh after giving opportunities to the
parties
10. On receipt of the certified copy of the order and
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, this tribunal
vide order dated 03.05.12 issued registered notices
to the parties for their appearance before this
tribunal. Application moved by the applicant for
adjournment was rejected vide order dated
29.01.2013 on the ground that the case is old one
and the case was reserved for award.
11. Again the applicant appeared on 07.02.13 and
moved application for recalling the order dated
29.01.2013, which was not opposed by the other
side therefore, the application was allowed the
workman was given opportunity to give his
evidence. On the other hand the opportunity give
evidence by the opposite party was closed by order
dated 26.02.2013 and the case was reserved for
Award.
12. First of all it will be seen as to whether the workman
was engaged by the bank. On this point the
workman in his evidence has stated that from
December 86 to 12.09.95 he continuously worked
as peon in the bank and when he raised his voice of
becoming regular and permanent employee of the
bank he was removed from the service of the bank.
In his cross examination he denied the suggestion
of the bank that he was engaged for supplying the
drinking water in the bank. He also admitted the
fact that no appointment letter was issued to him
by the bank. The workman was again re-examined
as witness with the permission of the Tribunal
wherein it was adduced by him that at the time of
termination of his service no notice pay or
retrenchment compensation was offered to him by
the bank. He has proved paper No. 7/24 to 7/39
which is the photocopy of dispatch register. He
has also proved paper No. 7/40 to 7/49 which is the
photocopy of Dispatch Register, He was used to
sign these register as a token of having received
the Dak. Paper No. 7/40 bears my signature which
has been encircled by the Court. He goes on to
state that he had worked for more than 240 days of
service on one calendar almost in each year during
the period he remained in the employment of the
bank. Based on paper No. 9/2 and 9/12 the witness
has denied the suggestion of the bank that he had
not completed 240 days of continuous service. He
has further challenged the authenticity of the
working chart prepared and filed by the bank in the
case. It is also denied by the witness that he was
simply used to supply the drinking water. He has
filed copy of dispatch register in the case as a piece
of evidence which was provided to him by the bank.
13. On the other hand the witness of the bank has
denied the fact that the workman was ever engaged
as a peon or work of peon was ever taken by him.
Witness goes on to state that in his branch there
was acute shortage of drinking water, therefore, to
overcome with the drinking water, the workman was
engaged. The management witness in his cross
examination after seeing the record Ext. W-25,
halfheartedly stated that whenever regular peons
were not available in the branch work of peon might
have taken from the workman and the Dak Register
finds the name of the workman.
14. Opposite party in their reply has not disputed the
fact that the workman was not engaged in the bank.
It is specifically admitted by the bank that the
workman was engaged intermittently to do purely
casual jobs in the branch for specified period and
as such engagement came to an end automatically
as and when the specified object accomplished or
time elapsed.
15. Therefore, after giving careful consideration to the
facts and circumstances coupled with the evidence
of the parties in the case, the tribunal is of the firm
view that the workman was engaged by the
management who some time worked as a daily wager
and some time as a peon. This fact finds support
from the documentary evidence filed by the
workman. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the
workman was never engaged by the bank.
16. It may also be pointed out here that the opposite
party has palpably failed to bring out from the
mouth of the workman during his cross examination
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7071
that he had not rendered continuous service of 240
days or more during preceding 12 calendar months
from the date of his termination. Therefore, it is
held that the workman has worked for more than
240 days of continuous service prior to his
termination and thereby a legal right has been
accrued in this favour to get notice, notice pay or
retrenchment compensation from the opposite party
which admittedly has not been done in the case by
the bank.
17. Workman has categorically stated in his evidence
that the opposite party bank has not complied
with the provisions of section 25F of the Act,
therefore, it is held that the workman has been
successful in establishing his case before the
tribunal by adducing overwhelming evidence on
the point that he has worked as a daily rated
worker as well as a peon in the bank, he has
completed 240 days of continuous service prior
to the date of his termination preceding 12
calendar months and that no compliance of the
provisions of section 25F of the Act has been
made by the bank in his case, therefore, at any
rate the action of Punjab National Bank in
terminating the services of workman cannot be
held to be justified and legal.
18. Accordingly it is held that the workman is entitled
for reinstatement.
19. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly in
favour of the workman and against the opposite
party.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2764.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfo'kuy
bathfu;j VsyhdkWe] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k &
105@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&12&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@52@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/2001)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Divisional Engineer (Telecom),
Bhopal and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 13/12/2013
[No. L-40012/52/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/105/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri R.B. Patle:
Shri Udaynath Ram,
S/o Shri Phoolchand Ram
No. 94, Gandhinagar Colony,
Near Kasturba Hospital,
Bhopal (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Asstt. Engineer,
Telecom (RE),
RE Project, E-3/179,
Area Colony, Bhopal
Divisional Engineer (Telecom),
O/o GMT, CTO Building,
TT Nagar,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 1stday of October, 2013
1. As per letter dated 4-5-2001 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-40012/52/2001/IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
''Whether the action of the management of
Divisional Engineer (Admn.), Telecom, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Udaynath Ram S/o
Shri Phoolchand Ram w.e.f. 2-2-98 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/8. Case of Ist party workman is that he
was working with IInd party from 15-9-86 to
31-9-87, thereafter from December 87 to April 95. He
had completed 240 days during each of the calendar
year. His services were discontinued w.e.f. April
1995. He was retrenched without notice in violation
of provisions of I.D. Act. That workman was
re-inducted with the management from 1-5-95 till
1-5-96. Again his services were discontinued.
During above said period, workman was working
7072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in office of Sub-Divisional Engineer, Govindpura
Exchange, Bhopal. That while he was working at
CRLU Exchange under the jurisdiction of Asstt.
Engineer (Cables), Arera Colony, Bhopal, his
services were terminated from 02-02-98 without
giving notice. That he had worked for more than
240 days during preceding calendar years. His
services were terminated in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act. The workman has given breakup
of his working days in 1987-283 days. 1988-266
days, 1989-215 days, 1990-187 days, 1991-240 days,
1992-312 days, 1993-251 days, in 1994-334 days and
in 1995-120 days. He was not given one month notice
before termination of his services. Principles of
natural justice were not followed. His services were
not regularized. IInd party acted arbitrarily. On such
grounds, Ist party is praying for reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement denying that
workman completed 240 days continuous
service, he denied that termination of his
services is in violation of provisions of I.D. Act.
That workman was never employee of BSNL.He
was engaged purely on casual basis for short
term period. That the work was of casual nature.
Workman was engaged subject to availability
of work. There was no question of termination
of his service. There was also no question of
regularization of service of the workman. That
workman had worked under Railway
Electrification Project. He had not worked in
Telecom District, Bhopal. That Railway
Electrification Project at Bhopal was already
closed relying on ratio held in various cases.
IInd party submits that workman is not entitled
for regularization of his service.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of
them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Divisional
Engineer (Admn.), Telecom,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Udaynath
Ram s/o Shri Phoolchand
Ram w.e.f. 2-2-98 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Though workman is challenging termination of
his services from 02-02-98, statement of claim is
filed by him. The claim of Ist party workman is
opposed by the management. Workman failed to
adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim.
Evidence of workman was closed on 07-04-2011.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri S.M.
Garg, Divisional Engineer. Witness of the
management has stated that workman was
engaged purely on daily wages subject to
availability of work. That Railway Electrification
Project was a short term project given to the deptt.
by Railway. That the workman is not entitled for
regularization. Management's witness Shri A.K.
Balpande filed affidavit of evidence. He was not
cross-examined. There is absolutely no evidence
to establish that termination of services of
workman is illegal. I, therefore record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Divisional
Engineer (Admn.), Telecom, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Udaynath Ram
S/o Shri Phoolchand Ram w.e.f. 2-2-98 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2765.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu/ke] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsanzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV
bathfu;j ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 13&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lñ ,y&40012@307@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 45/
2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of O/o
TDE, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 13/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/307/2001-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7073
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/45/2002
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. PATLE
Shri Rameshchandra,
S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh,
Vill & PO Bheelkhedi,
Tehsil Shajapur,
Shajapur
........Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Engineer,
O/o TDE,
Shajapur
........Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of October, 2013
1. As per letter dated 25-2-2002 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-40012/307/2001-IR (DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom
Distt. Engineer, Shajapur in terminating the services
of Shri Rameshchandra S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh w.e.f.
December 1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st party workman filed Statement of
claim at page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of workman is that he
had worked for more than 240 days in establishment
of IInd party. Their services were terminated without
notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation, principles of last come first go was
not followed. Termination of his service is in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He prays for
reinstatement.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6. Claim
of Ist party workman is denied. It is submitted
that workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service, no question arises of
terminating his services. There was no question
for payment of retrenchment compensation. That
the workman did not worked in the concerned
division. There was no question of obtaining prior
permission. Violation of section 25-H, G of I.D.
Act is denied. IInd party prays for rejection of
claim of workman.
4. Considering pleading on record, the points which
arise for my consideraiton and determination are as
under. My finding are recorded against each of them
for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Telecom
Distt. Engineer, Shajapur
in terminating the
services
of
Shri
Rameshchandra S/o Shri
Ranjeet Singh w.e.f
December 1997 is legal?
(ii) if not, what relief the
"Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Though the workman is challenging legality of
termination of his service, he has not adduced any
evidence. Evidence of workman is closed on
10-12-2010. Management produced affidavit of
evidence of management's witness Shri Bhagchand
Joshi. Witness of management has stated that Ist
party workman was never engaged by the
management at office of TDM, Shajapur. Claim of
Ist party workman for regularization in the Deptt. is
fabricated. Workman is not entitled to relief prayed
by him.
6. In his cross-examination, management's witness
says payment of wages of worker is made by HCL
and record is maintained by the administration.
There is no record relating to the workman. That he
had perused the record. Any record is not found of
the workman. Suggestion is denied by
managemnet's witness in his cross-examination that
workman Rameshchandra was continuously
working from 1984 to 2007. That workman himself
has not adduced any evidence. Thus there is no
evidence on record that termination of service of
workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of
I.D. Act. I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Telecom Distt.
Engineer, Shajapur in terminating the services
of Shri Rameshchandra S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh
w.e.f December, 1997 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
7074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2766.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV
esustj ch,l,u,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufn"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lnaHkZ la[;k 67@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 13&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@239@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Cour,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the managemnt of BSNL, O/o the TDM, and their
workman, recieved by the Central Government on 13/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/239/2003-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/67/2004
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Divisional Secretary,
National Union of Telecom Employees Line Staff &
Group D Mundla Nayata (Palda),
Indore
....... Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
BSNL, O/o TDM,
Ratlam
....... Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 12th day of November, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 7-6-2004 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-40012/239/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of TDM,
Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Shobarm
S/o Shri Prabhulal Choudhary w.e.f. 31-1-90 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties 1st party workman filed Statement of
claim at Page 6/1 to 6/3. The case of 1st party
workman is that he was working from 1984 till
January, 1990 with IInd party. His services were
terminated from 01-02-90. He was not served with
notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation,
termination of his services is in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act. Principles of last come first go was
not followed. Termination of his services is in
violation of Section 25-G of I.D. Act, He has filed
Petition No. 499/95 before CAT, Jabalpur. His
petition was rejected for lack of jurisdiction. He
was given liberty to approach appropriate forum.
After following conciliation proceedings, the
dispute is referred. On such contentions, he prays
for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/3. Preliminary objection is raised that the dispute
is referred after 10 years. 1st party workman was
initially appointed in separate establishment under
the Sub Divisional Officer, Phones Ratlam as well
as SDOT Mandsor. Thereafter the workman
voluntarily left the work. Other contentions of
workman are denied. It is denied that the workman
was terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G of
I.D. Act, completion of 240 days is denied.
According to IInd party, it was work of deptt. after
completion of work, work was transferred to other
place. The dispute is not tenable, IInd party prayed
for rejection of claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating
his contentions in Statement of Claim. That he had
completed more than 240 days continuous service
preceding his termination. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. He was not served
with notice of termination.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of
them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of TDM, Ratlam
in terminating the services of
Shri Shobarm S/o Shri Prbhulal
Choudary w.e.f. 31-1-90 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service
in violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act that he
had completed 240 days service. He was working
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7075
with IInd party from 1984 till January, 1990. IInd
party has pleaded that the dispute is referred after
10 years is not tenable. The workman had
challenged termination of his service filing petition
before CAT, Jabalpur, copy of order is produced.
Therefore the delay in pursuing reference cannot
be the ground for refusal of claim. In Para-4 of the
order passed by CAT, there is clear observation
that the time consumed before Tribunal should be
taken into consideration for the condonation of
delay under the provision of Section 5 read with
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
7. The workman filed affidavit of his evidence claiming
that he was working more than 240 days prior to
termination of his services on 1-2-1990. The cross-
examination of workman shows appointment letter
was not given to him. He was doing work of laying
telephone lines and electric poles. He had worked
in Ratlam Division. After completion of work, his
services seems to be discontinued for 2-4 days. He
was discontinued from work in February, 1990, he
has not produced documents. It is denied that after
completion of project, his services came to end. It
is denied that he has not completed 240 days
service.
8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri P.K. Jain
supporting contentions of management that
workman has not completed 240 days continuous
service. In his cross-examination, witness of
management says that he is working at Ratlam from
1-1-2007. Workman did not work under him. He has
not produced any documents relating to the case.
He denies that project work still continued. The
management's witness has stated that payment of
retrenchment compensation was not found
necessary. He denied suggestions that workman
completed 240 days continuous service.
9. Documents are produced. In Exhibit W-1 67 days
are shown from August 1986 to March, 1988, in
W-2 working days of workman are shown 405 days.
The services of workman were discontinued from
end of January 1990. Therefore the period of 12
calendar months needs to be considered from
December, 1989. In document Exhibit W-2 &
W-3,W-4 the working days are shown comes more
than 240 days preceding termination of his service.
Therefore workman is covered under Section 25(B)
of I.D. Act. The notice for termination of services
was not issued, retrenchment compensation is not
paid to workman therefore the termination of
services is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.
10. Councel for IInd Party submitted written notes of
argument. Copy of citation in case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and
others is also submitted. The ratio held in the case
does not cover termination of service in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The workman is not
claiming regularization in service. For reasons
discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1
in Negative.
11. Point No. 2—
In view of my finding on Point No. 1, the services
of 1st party workman are terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act, question arises to what
relief, the workman is entitled. Workman was
working with IInd party from 1984 to 1990.
Considering the spam of work, reinstatement would
not be appropriate. Reasonable compensation
would meet the ends of justice. In my considered
vis, compensation Rs. 50,000 would be proper.
Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 2.
12. I the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Termination of services of Shri Shobarm S/o
Shri Prabhulal Choudhary w.e.f. 31-1-90 is not
legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 50,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman with in 30 days. In case of default, amount
shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of
award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2767.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV
eSustj ch,l,u,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 13-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@240@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2767.—In pursuance of section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2004)
7076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of BSNL, O/o the TDM, and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
13/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/240/2003-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/66/2004
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Divisional Secretary,
National Union of Telecom Employees Line Staff &
Group D Mundla Nayata (Palda),
Indore.
...Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
BSNL, O/o TDM,
Ratlam
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 12th day of November, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 7-6-2004 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-40012/240/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:—
''Whether the action of the management of TDM,
Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Goverdhan
Singh S/o Shri Ramsingh w.e.f. 31-1-90 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed Statement of Claim at
page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that he was
working with IInd party from 1986. He was doing
work of laying telephone lines and its maintenance.
His services were discontinued from 31-3-90. He
had completed more than 240 days continuous
service preceding termination of his services. He
was not served with notice, no retrenchment
compensation was paid to him. Termination of his
service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.
That principles of last come first go was not
followed. As such provisions of Section 25-G is
violated, workman had challenged his termination
in original application 499/95 before CAT. His
petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Liberty was given to him to file proceeding before
appropriate forum after consultation with the Union,
conciliation proceedings was followed and the
dispute has been referred. Workman claims
reinstatement with consequential benefit.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3. Preliminary objection is raised that the dispute
is referred after 14 years is barred by limitation.
That workman is not covered under I.D. Act. IInd
party has denied all material contentions of 1st
party workman that he was continuously working
from 1986 to 1990. That workman has not completed
240 days service. Termination of his services is not
illegal. That workman was engaged on the work of
requirement basis on completion of the project, his
services automatically came to end. There was no
question of terminating his services. Workman was
not engaged against the vacant post. On such
ground, IInd party prays for rejection of the claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/3. He has
reiterated his contentions that his services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act
that CAT had rejected his petition on 30-7-97. He
had completed 240 days continuous service. His
services are terminated without notice, no
retrenchment compensation is paid to him.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of
them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of TDM, Ratlam
in terminating the services
of Shri Goverdhan Singh,
S/o Shri Ramsingh w.e.f.
31-1-90 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd party
denied all material contentions of workman.
Workman filed his affidavit of evidence claiming
that he had completed 240 days continuous service
preceding termination of his service from 31-1-90.
That he was not served with notice. Retrenchment
compensation was not paid. In his cross-
examination, workman says that he was working as
labour from 1-1-86 to 1-1-90. Appointment letter was
not issued to him. His name was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. He was called by
management as per requirement. He further says
that the document produced by him showing 187
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7077
working days in 1986 is incorrect. He denies that he
had left work, workman has not proved the
documents produced Annexure II, III are the zerox
copies. Copy of order passed by CAT is produced
on record. Management has filed affidavit of witness
Shri P. K. Jain. The evidence of management witness
is by way of denial that workman had not completed
240 days continuous service preceding his
termination. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says workman was not working in the Bank.
Muster Roll was not signed by him. Document
Exhibit W-1 shows workman was working for 187
days in 1986, 306 days in 1987, 45 days in 1988. The
services of 1st party workman were terminated from
1-1-1990. Working days of workman in 1989-90 are
not shown in Exhibit W-1. Other documents
produced by workman are not proved. Burden lies
on workman to prove completion of 240 days service
preceding his termination. Such burden is not
satisfactorily discharged. Therefore the workman
is not entitled to protection under Section 25-F of
I.D. Act, for above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of TDM, Ratlam
in terminating the services of Shri Goverdhan
Singh S/o Shri Ramsingh w.e.f. 31-1- 90 is
proper.
(2)
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2768.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy Vsyhxzk¶l
fMikVZesaV ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 75@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 13-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@29@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2768.—In pursuance of section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/05 of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Telegraphs Office, and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
13/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/29/2005-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/75/05
Presiding Officer, SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Imrat Sahu,
S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Sahu,
R/o Ward No. 4, Khidiy Mohalla,
Opp to Pathak Ki Chakki,
Mandideep, Distt. Raisen
....Workman
Versus
The Superintendent,
Central Telegraphs Office,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of July, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 22-7-05 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-40012/29/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of
Superintendent, Central Telegraphs Department,
Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Imrat Sahu
S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Sahu w.e.f. November 2003 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of
claim at page 4/1 to 4/3. The case of Ist party
workman is that on 5-1-99, he was appointed as
peon by IInd party. He was performing his duty
honestly. He had not issued any charge-sheet,
workman was paid Rs. 1100 per month. He was in
continuous service of IInd party for 5 years. His
services were discontinued in November 2003
without notice. He submits that IInd party was not
allowing him to work, he was not paid wages, other
persons were engaged in his place whose services
are terminated without retrenchment compensation
in violation of provision of I.D. Act, he prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement. The IInd party
denies that workman was appointed as permanent
7078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
post. He was continuously working as peon.
According to IInd Party, workman was engaged on
contract basis for filing water, cleaning work, laying
cable. From 1-1-99 he was not appointed against
any post but he was engaged on contract basis. He
was paid Rs. 1100 per month. It is denied that the
workman was continuously working and his
services are terminated in violation of provision of
I.D. Act. IInd Party prays for rejection of relief prayed
by workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of
them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of
Superintendent, Central
Telegraphs Department,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Imrat
Sahu S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal
Sahu w.e.f. November
2003 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Workman challenges his termination alleging
violation of provisions of I.D. Act, however he
failed to adduce evidence. The evidence of
workman is closed on 8-12-2009. The management
filed affidavit of witness Shri P.N. Singh. He was
not cross-examined. Other witness S.M. Garg was
also not cross-examined by workman.
6. As workman failed to substantiate his claim, he has
failed to cross-examine the management witness, I
find no reason to disbelieve the management's
witness. Workman has failed to establish that
termination is illegal. Therefore I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed by
him.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Superintendent,
Central Telegraphs Department, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Imrat Sahu S/o
Shri Kanhaiyalal Sahu w.e.f. November 2003 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2769.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy ifCyd
oDlZ fMikVZesaV ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
,oa Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 127@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@43@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] lsD'ku vkWfQlj
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Public Works Department,
New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/12/13.
[No. L-42011/43/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1,
DELHI
I.D. No. 127/2013
Shri Surender Kumar Sharma,
C/o All India CPWD (MRM)
Karmchari Sangthan,
4823, Gali No. 13,
Balbir Nagar Extension,
Delhi-110032
....Workman
Versus
1.
The Director General
CPWD, A-Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2.
The Executive Engineer (Electrical)
CPWD, 20, Subhash Road,
Dehradun.
....Managements
AWARD
1. A Wireman joined services with Central Public
Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the
management). He reached maxima of scale of pay.
In-situ promotion was not granted to him by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7079
management. He raised a demand in that regard,
but to no avail. Ultimately, he approached the All
India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan
(hereinafter referred to as the union) for redressal
of his grievance. The union raised an industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since
management contested his claim, conciliation
proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration
of failure report, so submitted by the Conciliation
Officer, the appropriate Government referred the
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order
No. L-42011/43/2013-IR(DU), New Delhi, dated
12.09.2013 with following terms:
"Whether action of the management of CPWD in
not granting in-situ promotion to Shri Surender
Kumar Sharma, Wireman and consequential
benefits is unjustified? To what relief workman is
entitled to?"
2. Claimant was called upon to file his claim
statement. When failure report, submitted by the
Conciliation Officer, was under consideration by
the appropriate Government, the management
realized its mistake. The Director General (CPWD)
passed order dated 09.06.2013 granting selection
grade to the claimant with effect from 01.04.1981
in the pay scale of Rs. 330-480. Thus, it became
evident that on grant of selection grade to the
claimant, there was no occasion for grant of in-
situ promotion to him.
3. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, authorized
representative, put in his appearance on behalf of
the claimant. Instead of filing claim statement, he
made a statement on oath wherein he projected
that on gant of selection grade, there remains no
grievance against the management. Contents of the
statement, made on oath by Shri Sharma, are
reproduced in extenso:
"I am the General Secretary of All India CPWD
(MRM) Karamchari Sangathan and the authorised
representative of Shri Surender Kumar Sharma, the
claimant. In that capacity, I am competent to make a
statement on his behalf. I state that on 09.06.2011,
the Director General (CPWD) passed an order
granting selection grade to Shri Surender Kumar
Sharma with effect from 01.04.1981 in the pay scale
of Rs. 330-480. On grant of selection grade to the
claimant, the authorities had fixed his pay in the
aforesaid scale and released payment of his arrears.
In view of this situation, now Shri Surender Kumar
Sharma cannot seek in-situ promotion. Now, there
remains no grievance against the management. The
dispute, referred by the appropriate Government,
may be answered accordingly."
4. In view of the above facts, it is apparent that the
claimant has been granted selection grade by the
management, vide order 09.06.2013 with effect from
01.04.1981. On grant of selection grade, question
for in-situ promotion no more remained valid.
Claimant felt satisfied on grant of selection grade
to him. It was projected on his behalf that his dispute
stood resolved, which proposition is correct, since
he has been granted selection grade from 01.04.1981
in pay scale of Rs. 330-480. Resultantly, it is
concluded that now there remains no dispute
between the parties. An award is, accordingly,
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government
for publication.
Dated : 22.10.2013
Dr. RK. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2770.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy ifCyd
oDlZ fMikVZesaV ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
128@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@44@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] lsD'ku vkWfQlj
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 128/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Public Works Department,
New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/12/13.
[No. L-42011/44/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,
DELHI
I.D. No. 128/2013
Shri Shyam Babu,
C/o All India CPWD (MRM)
Karmchari Sangthan,
4823, Gali No. 13,
Balbir Nagar Extension,
Delhi
...Workman
7080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The Director General,
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2.
The Executive Engineer (Electrical)
CPWD, 20, Sanjay Place,
Agra (U.P.)
...Managements
AWARD
1. An Assistant Wireman joined services of Central
Public Works Department (here in after referred to as
the management). Selection grade was not granted
to him. Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended
introduction of Assured Career Progression Scheme
for grant of two financial upgradation to an employee
in service span of 24 years. These recommendations
were accepted by the Government and Assured
Career Progression Scheme (in short the Scheme)
was introduced with effect from 09.08.1999. The
Assistant Wireman was granted two financial
upgradation by the management, pursuant to the
Scheme referred above. When the Government
accepted recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission, old Assured Career Progression
Scheme was substituted by Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as
MACPS). An employee is entitled to three financial
upgradation in MACPS, counted from direct entry
grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service
respectively. Financial upgradation in MACPS is
admissible whenever an employee spends 10 years
continuous service in the same grade pay. The
Assistant Wireman completed 30 years of
continuous service as on 01.09.2008. He became
eligible for grant of third financial upgradation under
MACPS, but to no avail. He made a demand for
grant of third financial upgradation, which demand
was not conceded to by the management. He
approached the All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari
Sangathan (in short the union) for redressal of his
grievance. The union raised an industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer. Since the
management contested the claim, conciliation
proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration
of failure report, so submitted by the Conciliation
Officer, the appropriate Government referred the
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order
No. L-42011/44/2013-IR(DU), New Delhi, dated
13.09.2013, with following terms:
"Whether action of management of CPWD in not
granting 3rd MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 to
the workman Shri Shyam Babu, Assistant Wireman
and consequential benefits is unjustified? To what
relief workman is entitled to?"
2. When failure report, submitted by the Conciliation
Officer, was under consideration with the
appropriate Government, management realized its
mistake. The Director General (CPWD) passed an
order on 06.09.2013 granting selection grade to
Shri Shyam Babu, Assistant Wireman, in the pay
scale of Rs. 1200-1800, with effect from 01.05.1989.
He was also granted 3rd financial upgradation from
01.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with
grade pay of Rs. 2800.
3. When selection grade was granted to Shri Shyam
Babu, besides 3rd financial upgradation, as referred
above, the claimant opted not to file his claim
statement. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, authorised
representative of the claimant, came forward and
made statement on oath before the Tribunal.
Contents of the statement, so made, by Shri Satish
Kumar Sharma, are reproduced in extenso:
"I am the General Secretary of All India CPWD
(MRM) Karamchari Sangathan and the authorised
representative of Shri Surender Kumar Sharma, the
claimant. In that capacity, I am competent to make a
statement on his behalf. I state that on 09.06.2013,
the Director General (CPWD) passed an order
granting selection grade to Shri Shyam Babu with
effect from 01.05.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-
1800. He has also been granted third MACP with
effect from 01.09.2008 and given financial
upgradation in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with
grade pay of Rs. 2800. In view of this situation,
now Shri Shyam Babu feels satisfied, since his
grievances have already been redressed. Now, there
remains no grievances against the management.
The dispute, referred by the appropriate
Government, may be answered accordingly."
4. Out of facts stated by Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, it
emerged that 3rd financial upgradation has been
granted to Shri Shyam Babu with effect from
01.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200, with
grade pay of Rs. 2800. On grant of 3rd financial
upgradation, dispute between the claimant and the
management stood resolved. An award is,
accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Dated : 22.10.2013
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2771.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ LdkbZ psQ
¼bafM;k½ izkbosV fyfeVsM] cSaxyksj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7081
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@7@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2771.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-11012/7/2011-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
31st October 2013
PRESENT :
SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding
Officer
C R No. 06/2012
I Party
II Party
Sh. Alex Joseph,
The General Manager,
No. 136, 4th Main Road,
M/s. Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Jagadishnagar,
Bangalore International Airport,
Thippasandra Post,
Devanahalli,
BANGALORE - 560 075.
BANGALORE - 560 030.
APPEARANCES :
I Party
:
Shri T. Srinivasa
Advocate
II Party
:
Shri K.R. Anand
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-11012/7/
2011-IR(M) dated 27.02.2012 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made this reference for
adjudication with the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the workmen of the management of M/s
LSG Sky Chefs (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
International Airport Ltd., Devanahalli, Bangalore
in terminating the services of Shri Alex Joseph, Ex-
Demi Chief Domestic Enquiry Partie w.e.f. 30/9/2010
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. After completion of the pleadings having regard to
the specific contention taken by the II Party that
II Party is not an industry carrying business under
authority of Central Government as such this
tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate as
consented by the learned advocate appearing for
the I Party two Preliminary Issues were raised as to
Whether I party-prove that II Party is an industry
carrying business under the authority of the Central
Government? If so, what the I party prove that this
tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute
covered in this reference and when the matter was
posted for Evidence of I party on these two issues
today a Joint Memo signed by the I Party his
counsel, Sh. Ningaswamy, Manager (HR) for the
II party and counsel for the II Party came to be filed
wherein it is stated the I Party in final settlement
of his claim received Rs. 184253.00 out of which
Rs. 160431.00 is towards notice pay and unavailed
leave salary of Rs. 10431.00 and Rs. 150000.00 as
one time lumpsum towards exgratia and
Rs. 23822.00 towards gratuity through Cheque
No. 536879 drawn on Deutsche Bank, M G Road
Bench and HSBC Banking Corporation Limited,
M G Road Branch respectively in fully and final
settlement of all his claim, the proceedings of the
reference came to be closed. In view of the above
settlement the I Party having received a total sum
of Rs. 184253.00 towards full and final settlement
of his claim and gave an end to the relationship of
employee and employer between himself and the
II Party the reference deserves to be rejected as
settled between the parties. In the result, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The reference is rejected in terms of the amicable
settlement reported today since the claim of I Party
on the II Party being settled and the relationship of
Employee and Employer between I Party and the II
Party is brought to an end.
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2772.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ikuhir fjQkbujh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
7082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky; 1] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 71@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@51@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2772.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Panipat
Refinery and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-30011/51/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 71/2012
The General Secretary,
Indian Oil Panipat Refinery Employees Union,
Panipat Refinery, Panipat.
...Applicant
Versus
The Executive Director (Incharge) IOCL,
Panipat Refinery, Panipat-1321
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the workman/Union
: Shri Hari Pal Singh Jethuri
For the management
: Shri P. Muralidharan
AWARD
Passed on 29.10.2013
1. Central Govt. vide notification No. L-30011/51/2012-
IR(M), dated 11.1.2013, has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the increase in the period of probation
of fresh/new appointees to Panipat Refineries as
workman from six months to one year by an
Administrative order without amending the certified
standing order is just, fair and legal? To what relief
the workmen are entitled?"
2. Case taken up for hearing. Claim statement already
filed by the Union, to which written statement was
also filed on record by the management. Today the
case was fixed for evidence of the workman. The
Authorised representative of the Union Sh. Hari
Pal Singh Jathuri appeared and made the statement
that the demand as per the reference met by the
management and in view of the above, he withdraws
the present reference. The Authorised
representative of the Management Sh. P.
Mulidharan also made the statement that the
demand of the Union has been met/accepted, and
reference may be returned in view of the above.
3. In view of the above statements of the parties, the
reference is answered accordingly. Central
Government be informed. Soft copy as well as hard
copy be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
Chandigarh 29.10.2013.
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2773.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj VkVk ,ñvkbZñthñ
ykbQ bU'kqjUl daiuh fyfeVsM iVuk 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@17@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/2012)
of the Central Government Indus.Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited,
Patna and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-17012/17/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
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. 43 of 2012
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7083
PARTIES :
Amit Kr. Singh, (Workman)
Sonarpatti, Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
Vs. Regional Sales Manager
Tata AIG Life Insurance Company
Ltd., Patna. 1
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman/Union : Workman (himself)
On behalf of the Management
: None
State
: Bihar
Industry:
Insurance
Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th Sept., 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-17012/
17/2012-IR(M) dt. 6.6.2012
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Tata AIG
Life Insurance Company Ltd. in terminating the
services of Shri Amit Kumar Singh is legal and
justified? What relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?"
2. The case of petitioner workman Amit Kumar Singh
in brief is that he was legally appointed to the post
of Asstt. Business Development Manager as per
Appointment letter dt. 26.12.2007 issued under the
authority of Senior Manager, Human Resources,
TATA AIG (Annex. I). As per stipulated date noted
in the appointment letter he joined his service on
02.01.2008 in the Branch Office, Muzaffarpur of the
Company. On completion of six months'
performance to the satisfaction of the authority
concerned as per terms and conditions of the
appointment letter, his service was confirmed
resulting in his becoming a permanent employee.
He was continuously performing his job of
enhancing the business of the employer under the
command and direction of Branch Sales Manager,
Muzaffarpur, Shree Sudhanshu Verma (O.P. No. 1),
and was accordingly getting his salary regularly till
August, 2008, but at his approach to the authorities
concerned following the non-receipt of his salary
from Sept., 2008, he knew of himself having been
shown as an absconder by the Branch Manager
(O.P. No. 1) since 15.9.2008 on his service record,
and it was communicated to the Higher Authority
also without the knowledge of the petitioner,
thereafter to him by the Higher Authority. Virtually
the service of the petitioner has been terminated
without serving on him any letter for termination/
dismissal or any show-cause, any explanation or
any notice therefor. Thus. he was ousted from
service, though he has signed the attendance
Register till 29.09.2008, regularing discharging his
duties, because not any written information was
served on him. Despite the aforesaid fact, the
petitioner is legally still in the service.
3. Further, it is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that
despite his intimations to the Authorities concerned
(Annex-2 Series), and legal Notice dt. 01.09.10, the
O.P. unresponded about it as also before the Labour
Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. At the referene of the
petitioner's case to the Labour Commissioner,
Government of Bihar, Patna and then as per the
instructions contained in the letter No. 3/D-44/11
No. 1719 dt. 17.06.2011 of the Joint Labour
Commissioner, Bihar, Patna (Annex-3), the petitioner
filed his application before the A.L.C. (C), Patna for
redressal of his grievance in which the other side
appeared and filed its written statement objecting
his claim; at last the matter was referred to the
Central Government for an adjudication. The
petitioner has the continuous service ad defined
u/s 25B of the I.D. Act but the employer did not
follow the procedure/categorical provision u/s 25F
of the Act for retrenchment/termination. Moreover,
after six months of continuous service, no employer
can illegally terminate the petitioner without
following the procedure laid down under section
26 of the Shop & Establishment Act. The Opposite
Party has not communicated the petitioner about
his any misconduct till the date. In spite of the
discharge of the duties and achievement of desired
result by the petitioner as per the instructions of
the Higher Authorities, the action of the Opposite
Party in singling him out and discriminatorily
treatment towards him by terminating his service is
entirely illegal and unjustified; it has put him in
great financial loss, as he has no other means of
income. As such, the petitioner has sought the
reliefs for his re-instatement in service with back
wages and benefits from Sept., 2008 and other
reliefs.
4. At the receipt of the present reference on 1.8.2012,
both the parties were issued Notices fixing 17th Oct.,
2012 for appearance. But the petitioner earlier filed
his written statement with documents on 7.8.2012.
When the O.P./Management did not appear and
respond to any of the three Regd. Notices dt. 27.8.12,
17.10.12 and 09.01.2013, the case came up for ex-
parte hearing
FINDING WITH HEARING
5. In support of his case, the ex-parte statement of
WWI Amit Kumar Singh, the workman himself
7084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reveals that as per his appointment letter dt.
26.12.2007 with Annexure I Compensation Summery
Letter (Ext. W. 1, seven sheets), he has continuously
served as the ABDM (Asst. Business Development
Manager) under the management from
28th December, 2008 to August, 2008 at
Muzaffarpur Branch) and accordingly he was paid
his salary for the period; the copy of his salary for
March, 2008 issued by the H.R. of the Management
(Ext. W. 3) as an instance of it; thereafter though
continued his service up to Sept., 2008, yet without
salary despite his marked attendance; at his
approach to the H.R. of the Company following
non-payment of his salary, it was found showing
him an absconder since 15th Sept., 2008 whereas
he never absconded from his duty; as such
termination of his service by the Company
Management without any legal procedure was
illegal and unjustified. The petitioner appears to
have represented through his three applications
dt. 18.02.2009, 06.02.2009 and 21.04.2009 (Extt. W. 4
series) to the Branch Sales Manager and other
Authorities concerned for payment of wages for
three months and the Legal Notice dt. 1.9.2010 (Ext.
W. 4/3) as well as to the A.L.C., Chata Chowk,
Muzaffarpur, therefore, he raised the industrial
dispute before their A.L.C. (C), Patna, whenever
the management of the Insurance Company had
submitted its written submission dt. nil (Ext. W. 5)
to which he had submitted his reply dt. Nil (Ext. W.
5/1). In fact, there is quite indisputable that as per
the terms of the letter dt. 26.12.2007 dealing with
"Sub: Appointment Letter" with its Annexure I
Compensation summary Sheet as part of his
appointment letter dt. Jan., 2007, the appointment
of the petitioner as the Asst. Business Development
Manager was totally contractual subject to the
terms and conditions noted therein for Business
Development as well as for the performance based
on sales incentives as announced be the Company
from time to time. Admittedly the Annexure-I
Compensation Summary Sheet to the appointment
letter of the workman deals with "This form is a part
of his appointment letter dt. 2.1.2007" between the
said periods there was an offer and acceptance of
service and submission of his qualification etc. for
his present appointment. In fact the appointment
of the petitioner was as per the terms and conditions
laid down in his appointment letter. Accordingly to
him (WWI exparte) but without any notice or any
reason assigned or any legal proceeding for any
misconduct against him, the O.P./Management
illegally terminated his service by showing him
falsely as an absconder.
6. On perusal of the ex-parte oral and documentary
evidences as adduced on behalf of the petitioner, I
find the indisputable fact is that as per the terms of
the letter dt. 26.11.2007 dealing with "Sub:
Appointment Letter" with its Annexure-I
Compensation Summary Sheet a part of his
appointment letter dt. Jan., 2, 2007 the appointment
of the petitioner as the Asst. Business Development
Manager was totally contractual subject to the
terms and conditions noted therein for Business
Development as well as for performance based on
sales incentive as announced by the Company from
time to time. But the petitioner could not establish
how he was declared an absconder. Whereas the
allegation of the petitioner about his illegal
termination as an absconder without any notice
any reason stands rebutted by his produced
document—the photocopy of the written
submission of the Insurance Company concerned
as submitted before the A.L.C. (C), Patna, (Ext. W.
5-three sheets) which prime facie discloses his
termination as per its letter dt. 9th Dec., 2008 as
intimated to him, for his long unauthorized absence
despite its letter dt. 20th & 29th Nov., 2008 to him
for rejoining his duty, as also for his negligent
conduct and for his unsatisfactory performance and
his unprofessional behaviour. These are the
misconducts of the continued unauthorized
absences, and negligence of the workman which
amount to the persistent breach of the terms and
conditions as laid down under the para 13 a to d of
the workman's Appointment Letter dt. 26th Dec.,
2007 (Ext. W. I) for his contractual work as the
Assistant Business Development Manager. The
O.P./Management of the TALIC (Tata AIG Life
Insurance Company) is vested with its internal
discretionary power under the said para of its Terms
and Conditions to terminate the delinquent
petitioner workman forth with without prior notice
if, in the opinion of the company at any time for his
act, misconduct or negligence, or failure in
observation compliance with its instruction and
directions. As the performance of any employee
like petitioner is always expected to be subservient
to the interest of his Company or Master in view
of their contractual relationship as per the
specified terms and conditions thereof, any
breach of its terms such as international
negligence in discharging of duty by its
employee afffects the interest of the Company
for Business Development which is meant for
both the parties. Therefore, the petitioner has
been rightly terminated by the O.P./Company
from his service for his intentional negligence and
non-professional behaviour towards the Company.
7. In result, it is, in the terms of the reference hereby.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7085
ORDERED
Let the Award be and the same is passed that the
action of the Management of Tata AIG Life Insurance
Company Ltd., in termination of service of Shri Amit Kumar
Singh is quite legal and justified. Hence, the workman is
not entitled to any relief from any time except his any legal
dues up to the date of his termination.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2774.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjsUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k gt+kjhckx fMoht+u 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; uañ
2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17011@6@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2774.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/
2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Hazaribag Division and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-17011/6/2010-IR(M)]
JOHON TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), 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. 16 of 2011.
PARTIES: The Secretary, Insurance Workers Organisation,
Jamadoba, Dhanbad
Vs.
Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Hazaribagh
Appearances:
On behalf of the workman
:
None
On behalf of the Management :
Mr. M.A. Khan., Ld.
Advocate
State
:
Jharkhand
Industry
:
Insurance
Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th June, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-17011/
6/2010-IR(M) dt. 23-05-2011.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of LIC,
Hazaribagh Division in denying the equal wages for
equal work at par with regular Sub-staff of the
Corporation in respect of S/o Shri Mangal Kerketta
and 76 others (List enclosed) is justified? What relief
the workmen are entitled to?'
2. Neither the Representative of the Insurance
Workers Organisation, Village Jamadoba, Distt.
Dhanbad nor any of the seventy-seven workmen
S/Shri Mangal Kerketta and 76 others (List
enclosed) appeared nor any written statement in
their behalf has been filed despite four Regd.
Notices issued to the Secretary of the Union
concerned. Mr. M. A. Khan, the Ld. Advocate for
the management, is also present.
On the perusal of the case record, I found that in
spite of four Regd. Notices issued to the Secretary
of the aforesaid union on his address noted in the
Reference itself, none of the Secretary or the
workmen responded to the notices in regard to the
filing of their written statement in the reference
which is related to the demand of their equal wages
for equal work. The Secretary of the union and the
workmen by their conducts appeared to be
disinterested in fighting the case for its finality.
Under these circumstances, proceeding with the
case for uncertainty is unwarranted; hence the case
is closed as no Industrial Dispute in existence. And
accordingly an order of No Industrial Dispute
existent is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
7086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
List of Worker in Hazaribagh Division
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
Date of Joining
Branch
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Mangal Kerkatta
Lt. Kinu Kerkatta
22.09.93
Dnb. Br.1
2.
Sachida Nandan Pd. Singh
Shri Ram Deo Ram
26.10.93
Dnb.Br.1
3.
Gopal Prasad
Lt. Nag Narayan
29.07.92
Dnb.Br.1
4.
Basu Bahadur
Sri Gyan Bahadur
28.08.1993
Dnb.Br.1
5.
Surendra Pd. Bhuia
Lt. Bishnu Pd. Bhuiya
02.11.1993
Dnb.Br.1
6.
Biznath Gupta
Sri Mohan Lal Saw
31.08.1994
Dnb.Br.1
7.
Suresh Kumar
Shri Bishwanath Rajak
01.01.1995
Dnb.Br.1
8.
Syama Pd. Mahanta
Lt. Bela Hari Mahanta
01.01.1994
Dnb.Br.1
9.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Lt. Gaur Chandr Singh
17.08.1989
SSSale Dnb.
10.
Mukul Singh
Lt. Ashutosh Singh
22.09.1993
SSSale Dnb.
11.
Chandi Charan Bouri
Sri Chatu Bouri
28.10.1994
SSSale Dnb.
12.
Ashok Kumar Karmkar
Sri Anando Mohan Karmkar
28.10.1994
SSSale Dnb.
13.
Chandan Kumar Jha
Sri Jai Kishan Jha
02.11.1993
Dnb.Br.2
14.
Alok Kumar Pathak
Sri Gasnesh Ch. Pathak
16.11.1990
Dnb.Br.2
15.
Sasti Charan Mondal
Sri Mathur Mondal
01.07.1990
Dnb. Br 2
16.
Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Sri Anirudh Mishra
02.11.1993
Dnb.Br.2
17.
Sashi Sekhar Jha
Lt. Bijay Ch. Jha
10.11.1996
Dnb.Br.2
18.
Madhu Sudhan Pandey
Sri Lakhand Pandey
10.05.1990
Dnb.Br.2
19.
Jalo Dutta
Lt. Golak Dutta
28.06.1993
Dnb.Br.4
20.
Sudhanshu Pandey
Sri Lakhan Pandey
28.09.1995
Dnb.Br.4
21.
Bhola Nath Pandey
Sri Lakhan Pandey
18.06.1995
Dnb.Br.4
22.
Sateyendra Kumar
Lt. Bishwnath Kumar
18.04.1983
Sindri
Pandey
Pandey
23.
Lal Jee Dubey
Lt. Bishwanath Kumar
14.04.1990
Sindri
Dubey
24.
Pradeep Sardar
Sri S. N. Sardar
18.05.1988
Sindri
25.
Dhananjay Bouri
Sri Fakir Bouri
06.07.1993
Sindri
26.
Shamal Sahish
Sri Paresh Sahish
15.04.1993
Sindri
27.
Jhunu Sardar
Lt. Jadu Sardar
20.07.1993
Sindri
28.
Dhanraj Ram
Lt. Chaklu Ram
17.07.1998
Ramgarh
29.
Prabin Kr. Sinha
Sri A. K. Sinha
03.10.1994
Ramgarh
30.
Chunnu Pd. Kuswaha
Sri Utam Pd. Kuswaha
01.01.1995
Ramgarh
31.
Narayann Nath Pd.
Sri Raja Ram
20.06.1994
Ramgarh
32.
Ramesh Pd.
Sri Sita Ram Ram
16.07.1998
Ramgarh
33.
Pradeep Kumar Pd.
Sri Vishwanath Prasad
16.07.1993
Chirkunda
34.
Govinda Podo Sadhu
Lt. Ram Kiukar Sadhu
12.04.1988
Chirkunda
35.
Mintu Kanthal
Sri Niranjan Kanthal
20.05.1996
Chirkunda
36.
Sasti Das
Lt. Rampada Das
15.08.1995
Chirkunda
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7087
1
2
3
4
5
37.
Bali Ram Prasad
Sri Ram Janam Prasad
20.09.1998
Chirkunda
38.
Pappu Kumar
Sri Durga Ram
1.11.1995
Giridih
39.
Sailender Kumar
Sri Gopal Prasdad
1.1.1995
Giridih
40.
Soumen Sen Gupta
Sri R. S. Sen Gupta
27.03.1994
Katras
41.
Montu Rajwar
Sri Arjun Rajwar
12.7.1994
Katras
42.
Baudeo Saw
Lt. Thakur Saw
20.12.1993
Katras
43.
Lakhikanth Dawn
Sri Devendra Nath Dawn
17.10.1995
Katras
44.
Bharat Kumar Mali
27.12.1993
Katras
45.
46.
Ajit Kumar Verma
Sri Narayan Ram
27.10.1995
Jhumri Talia
47.
Sudhir Ram
Sri Awadh Bihari
27.10.1995
Jhumri Talia
48.
Kamal Deo Prasad
Sri Madhusudhan Prasad
29.1.1994
Bokaro
49.
Manjee Pandey
Sri B. B. Pandey
23.11.1994
Bokaro
50.
Nirjan Mahato
Sri Ambuj Mahato
1.12.1993
Bokaro
51.
Prahlad Kr. Mahato
Sri Thakur Mahato
5.5.1997
Bokaro
52.
Sagar Chand Mahato
Sri Gunjam Mahato
28.8.1996
Bokaro
53.
Harlikcs Mahato
Sri Jai Chand Mahato
19.08.1996
Bokaro
54.
Sunil Kr. Singh
Sri S. N. Singh
1.1.1994
Bokaro
55.
Basudeo Prasad
Lt. Chanda Prasad
17.7.1995
Bokaro
56.
Kanahiya Ram
Sri Mantu Ram
17.7.1995
Bokaro
57.
Hemlal Mahato
Lt. Gujar Ram
17.11.1993
Bokaro
58.
Rameshwar Mahato
Sri Narayan Mahato
17.11.1993
Bokaro
59.
Shadeo Mahato
Sri Chhaku Mahato
12.9.1995
Bokaro
60.
Kishan Ram
Sri Ram Lal Ram
12.9.1995
Bokaro
61.
Dujo Pado Bhandari
12.9.1995
Govindpur
62.
Raju Kumar Battha
Sri Bhiswanath Rajak
2.11.1993
Govindpur
63.
Binod Kr. Mandal
Sri Ganga Dhar Mandal
2.11.1995
Govindpur
64.
Sanjay Kr. Mishra
Sri Anriudh Mishra
2.11.1993
Govindpur
65.
Ranjit Kumar
Sri Ram Kumar Thakur
Bokaro
66.
Mahesh Ram
Sri Baijnath Ram
Bokaro
67.
Ramesh Kumar Sharma
Sri Mahendra Prasad
Bokaro
68.
Bairam Jha
Sri Bhumeshwar Jha
11.2.1994
Bokaro
69.
Jagarnath Gorai
Sri Kalipodo Gorai
23.11.1990
Bokaro
70.
Dilip Bhadhur
Sri Uday Raj Giri
Ramgarh
71.
Ajit Lal
Ramgarh
72.
Biswajit Roy
Shri Bipati Bhanjan Roy
Govindpur
73.
Md. Inam
Ramgarh
74.
Mirtunjay Singh
75.
Birendra Tiwari
Lt. Rishi Kesh Tiwari
76.
Kirshna Pado Mandol
Sri Rathu Mandol
Chirkunda
77.
Dilip Kumar Sen
Lt. Narayan Chandra Sen
Chirkunda
7088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2775.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] /kuckn fMiks 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;
uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30012@2@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2775.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 35/2005) of
the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Dhanbad Depot and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-30012/2/2005-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
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. 35 of 2005
PARTIES
: The General Secretary,
Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,
Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad
Vs. Sr. Officer Incharge,
M/s BPCL, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. N.M. Kumar,
workman/Union
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the
:
Mr. V.K. Pandey,
Management
Ld. Advocate
State
:
Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th June, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-30012/
2/2005-IR (M) dt. 29.03.2005.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of
M/s BPCL, Dhanbad Depot, Dhanbad in not reinstating
S/Shri Dwij Pad Mondal, Utpal Kumar Ganguly and
Yogendra Singh in the services of the Corporation in their
respective cadre is justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled?"
2. The Case of the Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,
Dhanbad, for three workmen S/Shri Dwij Kumar Mandal,
Utpal Kumar Ganguly and Yogendra Singh is that on
sponsoring their names by the Employment. Exchange,
Government of Bihar in the year 1989, after their written
test and personal interview initiated by the Management
of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (M/s BPCL), they
were declared successful and appointed by it; Dwij Pd.
Mandal and Utpal Kumar Ganguly as General workmen,
and Yogender Singh as Heavy vehicle Driver were working,
for which they were paid their wages by the management
at the monthly rate prescribed by it from time to time, in
addition to ex-gratia payment to them by it as per the rules
of the management. In spite of their continuous service for
13 years, the management terminated without prior any
chargesheet or any show cause against the mandatory
provisions of the Certified Standing Order of the Company,
and of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947. Though they
were regularly reporting for their duties, the management
made some paper arrangement as a camouflage in order to
deprive them of legitimate right and benefits showing them
as casual workmen. All of the had got the status of
permanent workmen. The BPCL Management is a
Government Company, it can not adopt the theory of hire
and fire. They suffered the victimization amounting to
unfair labour practice under the/schedule Fifth to the I.D.
Act, 1947. They are entitled to their reinstatement with full
beck wages and other consequential benefits.
3. The sponsoring Union in its rejoinder has
specifically denied the allegations of the Management and
stated that once the matter referred by the Ministry needs
an adjudication. For engagement of the workmen in any
planned and unplanned leave of permanent workmen, a
Badli workmen is to be engaged in casual nature of job
whereas the workmen concerned were engaged in the
permanent nature of job. Their termination was in utter
violation of the principle of natural justice. The BPCL is
not a 'state' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution
of India.
4. Whereas categorically denying the allegations of
the Union/workmen, the case of the O.P./Management is
that the Union being not of the workmen has no locus
standi to raise the dispute. The BPCL has a Depot at
Dhanbad where petroleum and its products are distrbuted
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7089
to its various Dealers. The Dhanbad Depot is responsibile
for adequate supply of the petroleum and its products to
its retailers. For the distributor and other incidental works,
the management has already engaged regular employees
as per the sanctioned posts in the different cadres and
grades. However, due to absentism and sudden exigencies'
to keep the supply line going, it has to engage some casual
and purely temporary persons for maintaining the regular
chain of supply and running the business smooth. The
engagement of casual workers as an acknowledged practice
prevalent in all the industries to cater the exigency in
sudden spurt of workload by maintaining continuity of the
work in the event of any planned/unplanned leave of
permanent workmen. The company even for casual
engagement has to engage only the persons recommended
by the Employment Exchange and accordingly as per its
request letter dt. 5.6.1989, it notified the requirement for
empanelment of casual and temporary labours etc. for which
the name were called for from there. Such workers were
paid at the daily rated wages. After the written test of the
recommended candidates on 10.12.1989 followed by the
declaration of their result on 15.12.1989, suffessful
candidates were called for interview on 29.12.1989. On the
medical test the three workmen concerned were emplanelled
to discharge duties purely on casual and temporary basis
in exigency. The workmen began to work only on the days
when their services were required. Their call letters specified
their engagement only purely and temporary on casual
basis could not in any circumstances be deemed as an
offer by the Corporation for employment.
5. Further it is alleged that knowing full well the nature
of the purely temporary engagement libale to be disengaged
on any day without prior information or payment of
compensation, the workman accepted their such
empanelment for temporary and casual engagement. The
workmen continued to be engaged during the same year,
i.e. 1989-90 till 2000-01 for some days in exigencies and
accordingly they were paid their woes at the rate of day
wage including ex-gratia, but none of three workmen ever
completed continuous work for 240 days in any year as
noted in para 13 of the Written statement cum rejoinder of
the O.P./Management. The casual engagement of the
workmen concerned discontinued in the year 2001. It was
neither termination nor retrenchment, rather a
disengagement of casual and temporary engagement.
6. It is also alleged by the O.P./Management at the
complain of the workmen to the Asst. Labour Commissioner
©, after detailed enquiry into it, the ALC concerned found
no irregularity in the disengagement and intimated them as
per his letter dt. 21.3.2003 that no legal action was possible
in that regard. Then the corporation also reported in writing
dt. 8.1.2004 and 29.3.2004 to the two legal notice
dt. 15.12.2003 and 18.1.2004 of the workmen. Consequent
upon the dismissal of their Writ application by the Hon'ble
High Court, Jharkhand the Union concerned as per their
letter dt. 21.9.2004 in view of the observation of the Hon'ble
High Court raised the dispute before the ALC, Dhanbad
which in failure of reconciliation resulted in the reference
for an adjudication. The Corporation being a Public Sector
Undertaking is not a Government and service condition
etc. applicable to Central Government employees are
inapplicable to it, as the Corporation has its own rules and
regulations. In view of the matter, no impediment can be
put before an employer in the engagement of casual and
temporary employees in exigencies.
7. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder with
categorically denials has stated that they worked out breaks
as casual and puely temporary employees. They were never
issued appointments letter for their appointment against
the permanent posts, nor allotted any benefits or facility as
available to permanent employee. Their payment of wages
was based on the number of their working days as casual
workers, but never on monthly basis. They were fully aware
of their engagement as casual workers against the
absentism as also defined in the Certified Statnding Order
of the Corporation. As such their casual engagement for it
automatically ended with their disengagement. So, the
workmen are not entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONING
8. In the reference, WW1 Diwij Pado Mahato, WW2
Utpal Kumar Ganguly, and WW3 Joginder Singh, all three
workmen for the Union concerned and MW1 Diwakar Das,
the Depot Incharge, BPCL, Dhanbad and MW2 Subhash
Mukherjee, the Manager (Employees Relation), East Kolkata
for the O.P./Management have been respectively examined.
Out of all three workmen's witnesses on their affidavited
statements, the last WW3 being uncrossed has not legal
evidentiary value.
9. Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Union/
workmen, submits that the admissions of MW1 Darwika
Das in paras 5 & 6 of his statement as in Para 7 & 8 of the
Written statement of the O.P./Management are that the
workers were realted on declaration of their success through
the usual process of calling for the their names from the
employment exchange Written Test, Interview and Medical
Test by the Company and despite the admitted facts of the
registers of their Attendence and payment having been
maintained, the failure of their management in producing
them as called for as per the petition dt. 15.12.2005 of the
workmen or any document about their empanelment as
casual and temporary workers lead to an adverse inference
against the management; as such, it stands proved the
completion of their 240 days attendances, and so their
termination was in utter violation of the mandatory
provisions of Sec. 25 F and 25 N of the I.D. Act., 1947.
10. But the argument of Mr. Kumar, Learned Counsel
for Union appears to be diluted with unreal facts, because
it is an indisputed fact as WW1 Diwij Pado Mandal admitted
7090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that none of the workmen has got any letter of appointment
as a permanent worker which is evident from their
photocopies of written test: General workman against a
few casual vacancies concerning the workman concerned
(Ext. 1 to 5), and Identity Cards of Shri Durj Pado Mandal
and Shri Utpal Kumar Ganguly 9Extt. W.11 and W.12
respectively. Apart from it, the photocopies of Exgratia
payment to them as casual workmen for the period of
1992-93, 1991-92, 1994-98 and 2000-01 (Extt. W.13-18)
respectively, but none of them establishes it that any of
the workmen has continuously worked for 240 days for
any year preceding the date of raising the industrial dispute.
The straightway admission of WW2 Utpal Kumar Ganguly
that his letter dt. 21.11.1989 issued by the management for
the written test (Ext. W.2) was for General workman purely
casual; they used to get their wages accordingly to their
work done, and that no letter was issued by the
Management for making them permanent workers-prove
their status purely as casual workers.
11. Mr. V.K. Pandey, the Learned Advocate for the
O.P./Management has contended that the management of
the Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL) had engaged
three casual Mr. Diwij Pado Mandal, Utpal Ganguly and
Yogender Singh as casual workers in exigencies of sudden
increase in workload or of unplanned leave and absentism
of regular workmen but none of them completed 240 days
in any particular year, because they worked occasionally
and intermittently. Further contention of the Ltd. Counsel
for the O.P./Management is that while sponsoring the
names of these casual workers by the Local Employment
Exchange, it was to their full knowledge of their engagement
as casual only, for which their suitability of skill level
required for preference of entirely casual jobs as the BPCL
is a highly sophisticated organization which handles the
petroleum products. Mr. Pandey, the Ld. Counsel for the
O.P./Management has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of the Secretary State of Karnatka Vs.
Uma Devi 2006 LL1-722 a similar to the present case was
pleased to hold.
"When a person enters a temporary employment gets
engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the
engagment is not based on a proper selection as recognized
by relevant rules of the procedure,he is aware of the
consequence of the appointment being temporary, casual
or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the
theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the
post when an appointment to the post could be made only
by following a proper procedure for selection...." (Para 38)
From the statements of the MW1 Dwarika Das, the
Depot Incharge, Dhanbad, and MW2 Subhash Mukherjee,
the Manager the Employee Relation, East Kolkata it is
evident that the engagement of the three workmen after
calling for names of 25 persons as sponsored by the
Employment Exchange followed by Written Test and
Medical Test for their fitness was casual but not against
any sanctioned post, they were paid only for their work
done casually according to their attendences as per their
Attendance Registers for pereiod 1989 to 2002. Moreover,
apart from all the relevant exhibited documents, the Exgratia
payment (Ext. M 14-36) to the casual workers for the period
1.4.1990 - 31.3.1991 upto March, 2002 sepcifically details
their working days annually but intermittently lesser than
240 days in the relevant years.
On the consideration of the materials availables on
case record, I find that these three casual workers cannot
claim for reinstatement in any cadre, as none of them was
appointed/engaged against any sanctioned post under the
management. The arguments of Mr. V.K. Pandey, Learned
Cousel for the O.P./Management as contrasted with that of
Mr. N.M. Kumar, the Ld. Advocate for the Union/workmen
appears to be more plausible and persuasive. In view of
the aforesaid findings, it is, in the terms of the reference,
hereby.
ORDERED
That the Award be and the same is passed that the
question about alleged action of the management of
M/s. BPCL, Dhanbad Depot, Dhanbad is not resinstating
S/Shri Dwij Pado Mandal, Utpal Kumar Gangualy and
Yogender Singh in the services of the Company in their
respective cadre as justified does not arise as also in view
of their admitted status as casual workers, as well as in lack
of their pleading and proof about alleged cadre. Hence, the
workers concerned are not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2776.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbñ chñ ihñ
daiuh fyfeVsM ykyefVvk 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; uñ 2 /kuckn ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@59@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/2000)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of I.B.P. Company Limited, Lalmatia and their
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7091
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-30011/59/2000-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
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. 89 of 2000.
Parties
:
Mr. Arun Kr. Dutta & 6 others
(Workmen)
Vs. Management of I.B.P. Co. Ltd.,
Lalmatiya, Godda, Jharkhand
Apearances:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. S.N. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
workman
On behalf of the
:
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ltd. Advocate
Management
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Mines
Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th June, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-30011/
59/2000-IR(M) dt. 29.08.2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether Sri G.P. Sen, Sri S.P. Srivastava, Sri Gautam
Ghosh, Sri R.N. Verma, Sri A.K. Dutta, Sri Zachrias Minj
and Vinod Sonkar can claim themselves as workmen of IBP
Co. Ltd., at Lalmatia, Godda, whether the action of the
management in not regularizing their services & stopping
their salaries w.e.f. July, 1999 and onwards was justified? If
not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. The case of Sri Arun Kumar Dutta the workman
raising the industrial dispute for the seven workmen named
in the reference, is that the workmen have been
continuously working at SMS Plant at Lalmatia since its
inception from the different dates of their appointment in
the year 1994 as permanent workmen against permanent
vacancy there, producing goods for the benefit of the
management. They have been working under the direct
control and supervision of the management. They have
put in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar
year. The management are also supplying all the implements
for the execution of the job. They have been performing
the same and similar nature of job of perennial nature as
being performed by other permanent workmen of the
Company. Initially the management started to pay them
arbitrarily and below the prescribed rate of wages, and
even minimum wages for the IBP Company Ltd. through
intermediaries which is nothing but a legal camouflage.
The management started to pay them directly from Oct.,
1997 and paid up to June, 1999. At their demand for
regularization and other facilities at par with other permanent
workmen, the management started of offer them wages
through alleged intermediaries M/s. Deepak Enterprises
Before introduction of the intermediary system, no notice
was issued under Sec. 9A nor the principle of natural justice
was followed.
3. Further case of the workmen is that as soon as the
management started to pay the concerned workmen wages
directly, they shall be deemed as the employees of the
management. The workmen became the permanent
employees of the management since their engagement.
Despite their protest against the illegal change in condition
of services and introduction of payment through alleged
intermediaries, they are working regularly, though they are
not receiving their monthly wages from the alleged
intermediary. Even at their several repeated representations
for regularization and for payment of wages at par with
other permanent employees. As per resolution at their
meeting, one workman Arun Dutta was selected and
authorized to espouse the dispute on their behalf, which
was raised before the ALC (C), Patna, but its failure in
conciliation due to adamant attitude of the management
resulted in the reference for an adjudication. The action of
the management is not regularizing their services and
stopping their salaries from July, 1999 onwards was illegal
and unjustified whereas their claim for it is legal and
justified.
4. In the rejoinder dt. 20.02.2002 unsigned by any of
the workmen, it has been specifically denied all the
allegations and stated that it is not an individual dispute,
rather an industrial dispute under the Industrial Dispute
Act, as it was raised by the person authorized by the body
of the workmen. The supply of the explosives by the
Company to different collieries is the job of permanent and
continuous nature to maintain steady progress of work
which is the work of continuous and permanent nature
concerning the workmen.
5. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the present
reference being related to an individual dispute is not an
industrial dispute u/s 2A read with Sec. 10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act., 1947. The persons concerned were neither
selected nor recruited by the management of I.B.P. as such
never employer-employee relationship existed between the
management and the persons concerned. They were
7092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
engaged by M/s. R.K.J. Jaiswal, a contractor of the
Company during the period from April 1997 to Sept., 1997
to perform the contract jobs awarded to the contractor by
the company. The management of I.B.P. Co. Ltd., entered
into the agreement with M/s. Coal India Ltd., and M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd., for supply of explosives to the
Mines at Lalmatia Colliery within Rajmahal Area as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement. The manufacture
and shortage of the explosives is stored in the magazine as
per the licence obtained by the management of the colliery
as well as per the licence obtained by the management of
M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd. in view of consumption of explosives at
different period, the production is made steady for
maintaince of shortage capacity in the magazine as per the
prescribed limits in the licence. Thus the production of
explosives by the management cannot be unlimited in
quantity and the production fluctuate as per the requirement
in the collieries.
6. Further alleged by the O.P./Management that in
situation of the exigent production of explosives under
severe restriction as per the provision of law, the
management engages contractor for some of the jobs
incidental to production of explosive at the explosive plant;
accordingly a contract for it was awarded to M/s. R.K.
Jaiswal during the period from April, 1997 to Sept. 1997?
The contractor performed the job as per the terms of the
agreement and work order, and engaged the concerned
workmen to perform the jobs entrusted to the contractor.
After expiry of the aforesaid contract, the concerned
workmen took themselves the contract individually and
jointly discharged their responsibilities in executing the
contract, and receiving their payment from the management
on their respective bill. Thus they carried on the contract
jobs as per the requirement during the period from
Oct., 1989 to June, 1999. Thereafter, when M/s. Deepak
Enterprises got the contract in its favour from July 1999
and in failure to get it the concerned persons interfered
with the work of the contractor, and they approached the
contractor for their engagement. In some disputes over
payment of dues between the contractor and its workmen,
the management as the Principal Employer took initiative
for smooth work of contract job and for proper payment of
wages to them as per provision of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolitions) Act, 1970 and its rules. Thus,
the concerned persons are working as contractor workers
of the said contractor, and are getting the payment from it
on the basis of the jobs performed by them as allotted to
the contractor from time to time. So they cannot assert
themselves as the workmen of M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd., nor can
claim for their regularization under its management, they
are not entitled to any relief.
7. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has
categorically denied all the allegations of the persons
concerned, and stated that they were engaged through
contractor, they were being paid wages by the contractor.
FINDING WITH REASONING
8. In the reference WWI Gurupada Sen, WW2 Arun
Kumar Dutta for the workmen and MW1 G.S. Rana, Dy.
Manager (A &A) Indian Oil Corporation, Dhanbad for the
management have been examined in full respectively.
WW1 Gurupada Sen has apparently admitted that
his appointment letters dt. 18.1.92, 9.3.92, 4.4.92 and 22.5.92
(Extt. W 1 series) were for the period from Jan. 20 to March,
03, March 9—31, April 4 to May, 16 and May, 22 to July, 4.
1992 respectively, thereafter he did not get any appointment
letters. These letters relate to his appointment as trainee
General Workman in this Organization (Of the Former I.B.P.
Co., Ltd. now IOCL) at Singurauli (M.P.) on temporary basis.
His certificate dt. 18.10.1993 (Ext. W.2) issued by the
Company relates to his working as Electrician intermittently
and whenever required during 1 and 1/2 years. As per the
later dateless of the I.B.P. Co. Ltd., Rajmahal (now in
Jharkhand) (Ext. W.3) he was allotted a quarter from
1.11.1997, his PF Contribution statements (Ext. 4 and 4/1)
for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 proved Gurupada Sen.'s
contribution under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme
1952. The Employees Provident Fund & Misc Provision
Act., 1952 under Sec. 2 (f)(i) defines and includes "employed
by or through contractor in or in connection with the work
of the establishment". His straightway admission that the
workmen were paid their wages through contractor Deepak
Enterprises, Bhagalpur, the contractor of then I.B.P.
Company (Indo-Bermum Petroleum Company Ltd.) from
June, 1999, prior to which, they had got wages from the
R.K. Jaiswal for same period in the year 1997, they worked
under the contractor for two times; and that in fact, the
company never permanently appointed them for the job,
and he (WW1) could not count the days for working.
9. Likewise, statement of MW2 Arun Kumar Dutta
reveals his acceptance that neither any of the seven
workmen has any appointment letter for a post nor there
was any advertisement for the posts they had worked on,
though he claimed that all the seven workmen had got their
individual payment of wages through "Yourself
Cheques"as per the copy of his letter to the Branch Manager,
SBI, RCMP Branch, Urjanagar, Godda for issuance of
Certified Copy of payment details (Ext. W.5). The witness
(WW2) has tried to show the allotment of quarters to the
Officer and the workmen as per its copy (Ext. W.6) but it
does mention of any workmen, rather as per the dateless
letter of the Manger (SMS)(Ext. W. 6/1) the witness Arun
Kumar Dutta (W.W. 2) was allotted Quarter No. B/152-442
one room at Urjanagar Township., w.e.f. his possession.
Admittedly as per the seven authorization certificates (Extt.
W. 7 series) relate to receiving/collecting of Road Permit
concerned only by Mr. Zaharias Minj and Mr. Arun Kumar
Dutta only two workmen. The brief work description of
Mr. Zachrias Minj (Ext. W. 8) proves the receipt of his
monthly salary by him initially through the contractor
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7093
M/s. Raj Kishor Jaiswal of Distt: Godda for 92,365,131 days
in the year 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively. Witness Arun
Kumar Dutta, (WW. 2) also claimed his PF Contributions
as per his PF Slip for the year and 2004-05 and 2003-04
(Ext. W. 4/2) also claimed his PF Contributions as per his
PF Slip for the year and 2004-05 and 2003-04 (Extt. W. 4/2-5
respectively). It is also alleged that though they do not
any union, he (WW 2) was authorized by rest workmen
for it.
10. Whereas the statement of MWI G.S. Rana as
Dy. Manager (A & A) for the management for his tenure
from April, 1996 to June, 2001 at Lalmatia transpires the
mergence of I.B.P. Co. Ltd. with the Indian Oil Corporation
in 1997 (then in 2007 on recall); earlier the entering into the
agreement by the I.B.P. Co. Ltd., with the Coal India Ltd., in
1994 for the supply of explosives by the Company to the
Coal India Ltd., for mining. It is also reveals that he (MWI)
had proposed to the Plant Manager concerned as per the
proposal dt. 20.04.1997 (Ext. M. 1) for deployment of
manpower on contract. On the receipt of the three
quotations from contractors Raj Kishor Jaiswal, Deepak
Construction and Md. Nasdija (Ext. M. 3 series) against
the tender dt. 21.04.1997 issued by him in behalf of
Sri S.K. Mondal, the Manager of I.B.P. Company Ltd.
(Ext. M. 2) as per his Tender Committee Note prepared on
31.04.1997 (Ext. M. 4) under the signatures of the Committee
Members including him, area Sales Manager S. Sonkar,
Asstt. Manager Jayant Lal, SMS followed by the approval
of the Committee, contractor R.K. Jaiswal was given an
order for three months for supply of different labours, and
the contract was further accordingly extended for three
months from 1st May to 31st Oct., 1997 as per the letter dt.
18.7.1993 of the Plant Manager and the consent letter dt.
21.07.1997 of the R.K. Jaiswal Contractor (Ext. M. 6 and
6/1 respectively) after approval of the Manager (SMS) on
his (MWI) proposal note dt. 15.07.1997 (Ext. M. 5) as well
as on the recommendation of the aforesaid Tender
Committee (Ext. W. 6/2).
11. Further the MWI G.S. Rana affirms that
consequent upon declination of the aforesaid contract
R.K. Jaiswal to supply the Company different labour in
October, 1997 as per his proposal dt. 22.11.1997 for direct
contract with individual workmen concerned for one year
only, the Chief Manager Anup Dasgupta approved it (Ext.
M. 7). On his another proposal dt. 14.9.1998 (Ext. M. 7/1)
for the renewal of the aforesaid contract with the workmen
for further one year, it was approved by the manager
concerned. Thereafter at his proposal dt. 1.7.1999, though
the Tender Committee Members Sr. Manager S.K. Mondal
and other concerned to the Dy. G.M. (Marketing) (Ext. M.
7/2) and out of four contractors, Contractor Deepak
Enterprises Construction was awarded a contract on his
consent as per his letter dt. 10.7.1999 (Ext. M. 6/3) for
composite jobs in the Plan for nine months from 1.7.1999 to
31.3.2000, so the statements of the workmen about their
regular working for the management after their selection
for permanent jobs is false, so their demand for their
regularization in their job is not justified.
His cross examination firmly discloses that during
his tenure these seven workmen had intermittenlty worked
as per their contract when the contractor refused to deduct
their Provident Fund from their consolidated charges for
their work for one year, the management used to deduct it
for that one year as per the statue. The Management's
Certificate of Registration as the Principal Employer is
produceable, if required, but the management does not
maintain any register for issuance of a licence of contract
to the contractor etc., rather it is maintained by the
contractors themselves. The workmen were never paid
salaries by the management for their job. They were directly
under the control of their contractors concerned for their
job.
12. Mr. S.N. Goswami, the Learned Counsel for the
workmen as per written argument submits that the workmen
have continuously rendered their service for more than
240 days in each calendar year to the Company by
performing their assigned jobs of permanent nature till 2005
directly under the control and supervision of the Company,
their contribution to the Provident Fund from their salaries
prove them as the employees of the Company, but on their
protest to the payment of wages below the minimum wages,
the employees of the Company, but on their protest to the
payment of wages below the minimum wages, the action of
the management to stop their monthly salaries w.e.f. 1999 is
unjustifed, and during pendency of the case, they were
terminated from their services without any Notice under
Sec., 25 F of the I.D. Act. Mr. Goswami, the Learned Counsel
for the workmen has relied upon the ruling: 2005(106) FLR
1171(Jharkhand H.C. (Sb), Management FCI Vs. Union of
India through Labour Secretary & Ors, which relates to the
protection of workmen under Sec. 25 F of the Industrial
Dispute Act., 1947, and whether their regularization-wherein
their Lordship was pleaded to hold not to interfere with the
Award of the Tribunal whereby sudden termination of the
respondent's service without compliance with Sec. 25F was
held illegal, they were re-insttated with full back wages, as
the workmen concerned by his evidence had proved his
working for more than 240 days in one calendar year, and
persons similarly situated were regularized by the
management. But in view of the admission of the workmen
concerned as contractual ones for certain period only, their
case falls under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 as an exception to retrenchment/termination u/s
25F of the said Act. In result, the plea of Mr. Goswami, Ltd.
advocate for the Union for the alleged continuous service
just as the cited ruling holds not good with the present
case under adjudication.
13. Just contrary to it. Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned
Counsel for the O.P./Management, has contended that as
7094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
per the terms of the reference the workmen claim themselves
as the workmen of the company as contracted with their
payment through intermediaries, so their plea as the
workmen of the Company is contradictory, and that MWI
has proved the intermittent engagement of the workmen
through the aforesaid contractors, they are not entitled to
any relief, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to
hold in the case of the SAIL that no contractual workmen
can be regularized and that the Principal employer defaulter
for not granting a licence to its contractor is accountable
for punishment.
14. On perusal and severe consideration of the
materials available on the case record, I find that the facts
as under:
(I) These workmen S/Shri G.P. Sen and 6 others in the
reference were out and out contractual workers for relevant
periods, so there was never the employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
(II) They are completely failure in establishing the
factor as to when and how their intermittent casual
workmanship turned into their status as the employees of
the O.P./Management Company.
(III) So far as the maintainability of the present
Industrial Dispute is concerned, it is unmaintainable in back
of the requisites of the Industrial Disptue as defined under
Sec. 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947, moreover the present case
individualy raised by one workman for all ones beyond the
purview of the term retrenchment/termination as defined
under Sec. 2(00) of the said Act. Under these circumstances
in the terms of the reference, it is hereby:
ORDERED
That the award be and the same is passed that these
workmen S/Shri G.P. Sen, S. P. Srivastava, Gotam Ghosh,
R.N. Verma, Zachrias and Vinod Sonkar can not claim
themselves as the workmen of the I.B.P. Company Ltd., at
Lalmatia, Godda, as they were the casual workmen of the
contract concerned, but not of the said Company, and
contractors themselves for limited periods, so the question
whether the action of the management in not regularizing
their alleged services and stopping their salaries, w.e.f.,
July, 1999 onwards as justified or not, does not rise. Hence,
these workmen are not entitled to get any relief. Let the
copies—one hard and one soft of the Award be sent to the
Ministry of Labour & Employment for information and
needful publication in the Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2777.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkatk feujYl
izkbosV fyfeVsM batfu>jku vk;ju ,aM eSaxuht ekbal ds izca/kra= ds
lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esas fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] Hkqcus'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&27012@3@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Injanijharan
Iron & Mn. Mines and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-27012/3/2003-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 28/2003
Date of Passing Order—9th September, 2013
BETWEEN:
The Managing Director, Injanijharan Iron &
Mn. Mines, M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd.,
At. Parik Street, Po. Keonjhar, Dist. Keonjhar,
Orissa.
... 1st Party-Management
AND
Miss Kamali Naik,
D/o. Late Nadi Naik,
At./Po. Dhubakuchida, Via. Champua,
Keonjhar, Orissa.
... 2nd Party-Workman
APPEARANCES:
Shri S.K. Mohapatra,
...
For the 1st Party-
Auth. Representative.
Management
None.
...
For the 2nd Party-
Workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7095
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
vide its letter No. L-27012/3/2003-IR(M) dated 19.06.2003
has referred an industrial dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of the Managing
Director, Injanijharan Iron & Mn. Mines and their workmen
in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the following
matter:—
Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Injanijharan Iron
Mn. Mines, At/Po. Injanijharan, Via Joda, Dist. Keonjhar
in terminating the services of Smt. Kamali Naik, Miner At./
Po. Dhobakuchida, Via. Champua, Dist. Keonjhar from
8.1.2001 without serving proper notice and also without
complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. The 2nd Party-workman has submitted her
statement of claim alleging that she was engaged by the
1st Party-Management twenty five years back as P.R.M. at
the mines and since the date of joining she had been
working sincerely and honestly without giving any chance
of complaint to the higher authorities. But suddenly the
Manager of the Mines stopped her from duty on the plea
that there is no work for her as the working place requires
development work. The Manager assured her that after
completion of the developmental work she will be given
duty as before. She demanded alternative job in other sites
of mines, but she was not provided any job. The Managing
Director also assured her to wait till completion of the
development work and thereafter she will be provided job
as usual. The 1st Party-Management thus dismissed her
from job without following the rules of the establishment
and the principles of natural justice. No opportunity was
given to her before dismissal of service. Therefore she was
forced to refer the matter before the Conciliation officer-
cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela.
The 1st Party-Management did not co-operate with the
Conciliation officer to settle the dispute. Hence the
Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the Government
and consequently this dispute was referred to this Tribunal.
3. The 1st Party-Management denying all the
allegations of the 2nd Party-workman has stated that the
present matter was before the Labour Enforcement Officer
(Central), Barbil, where the 2nd Party-workmand had filed a
petition to call the 1st Party-Management to settle the
dispute amicably relating to her termination. The 1st Party-
Management on being called appeared before the Labour
Enforcement Officer (Central), Barbil and the matter was
resolved finally by way of amicable settlement and the 1st
Party-Management had paid an amount of Rs. 13,035
towards full and final settlement of the claim to the 2nd
Party-workman, who received the said amount in presence
of the General Secretary of the North Orissa Workers Union
and the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Barbil. After
receiving the said amount the 2nd Party-workman has no
more cause of action or ground to raise any dispute against
the 1st Party-Management and the reference should be
dismissed out-rightly on this score. The reference is also
time barred, illegal and unjustified and not maintainable in
the eye of law as there exists no dispute at all. The claim
statement has been filed after four long years in May, 2007
only with ill intention to harass as well as to put the 1st
Party-Management into unnecessary troubles. The said
memorandum of settlement is quite binding on both the
parties.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Injanijharan Iron & Mn.
Mines At./Po. Injaniharan, Via. Joda, Dist. Keonjhar in
terminating the services of Smt. Kamali Naik, Miner, At/Po.
Dhobakuchida, Via. Champua, Dist. Keonjhar from 8.1.2001
without serving proper notice and also without complying
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and
proper?
2. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
5. In this case the 2nd Party-workman never appeared
in the Court and even sent her claim statement through
post nearly after four years on giving repeated notices to
her. She has also not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence in support of her claim. Therefore there is no
evidence from the side of the 2nd Party-workman to
substantiate her claim. On the other hand from the side of
the 1st Party-Management sworn affidavit of Shri Sribatsa
Kumar Mahapatra has been filed in evidence along with
certain docements in support of its case, wherein the
witness has stated that the 2nd party-workman was given
Rs. 13,035 in full and final settlement of the dispute by the
1st Party-Management on 25.8.2003.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
6. The burden to prove this issue lies on the 2nd
Party-workman, but since the 2nd Party-workman has failed
to adduce any evidence in support of her claim this issue is
bound to be decided against her. Hence the 1st Party-
Management has indirectly admitted that the 2nd Party-
workman was terminated from job and on raising the dispute
before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Barbil a
settlement was arrived at between both the parties and
sum of Rs. 13,035 was paid to the 2nd Party-workman in full
and final settlement of the dispute. No ground of
termination has been disclosed by the 1st Party-
Management in its written statement. The 2nd Party-
7096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman has alleged that she was terminated after
rendering twenty five years of service without serving any
notice or due compliance of the statutory provisions. But
these allegations were not substantiated by any evidence
by the 2nd Party-workman. The 2nd Party-workman has
already been compensated by the 1st Party Management
for her termination. If any violation of rules was committed
by the 1st Party-Management, compensation for that has
been paid. Therefore no specific finding is either required
or may be given in view of the evidence on record. This is
decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2
7. Since the 2nd Party-workman had already been
paid compensation of Rs. 13,035 by the 1st Party-
Management in full and final settlement of the dispute of
which no denial has been made by the 2nd Party-workman,
the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled to any further relief.
8. Reference is answered accordingly. Dictated and
Corrected by me.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2778.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVhy vFkkWfjVh
vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM jkWmjdsyk LVhy IykaV ds izca/kr= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj mudh deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;
HkqousLoj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@52@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhunaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela
Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-29011/52/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 11/2013
Date of Passing Order - 3rd July, 2013
BETWEEN:
The Chief Executive Officer, SAIL,
Rourkela Steel Plant, P.O. Rourkela,
Distt. Sundargarh.
.... 1st Party-Management
AND
Their workman represented through the
Dy. General Secretary, Rourkela Mazdoor
Sabha, Bisra Road, Rourkela - 769 001,
Distt. Sundargarh.
.... 2nd Party-Union
APPEARANCES:
None
....
For the 1st Party-
Management.
None
....
For the 2nd Party-
Union.
ORDER
This reference was received in this Tribunal on
28.2.2013. The 2nd party-Union was required to file the
statement of claim in pursuance of the order of reference
dated 6.2.2013 within fifteen days from the date of receipt
of the order of reference. But on failure of the 2nd party-
Union to file the statement of claim, a notice was issued to
it on 22.3.2013 by ordinary post. When the 2nd Party-Union
did not respond to the notice and file the statement of
claim by the date fixed, a second notice under registered
post was issued to it on 28.5.2013. But despite receiving
the two notices, the 2nd party-Union neither turned up on
the Tribunal nor taken any steps to file the statement of
claim. Therefore it appears that either the 2nd Party-Union
has lost interest in prosecuting its case or might have settled
the dispute with the Management amicably out of the court.
In any case the 2nd party-Union should have appeared in
the Tribunal and laid down its stand in the case. In absence
of any pleadings raised by the 2nd Party-Unoin no
adjudication of dispute can take place.
2. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of
the view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the
case. Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.
3. The reference is answered in the above terms.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2779.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZñVhñMhñ
lhesaVs'ku bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM bafM;u vk;y dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds
izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj mudh deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7097
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@10@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhunaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of ITD Cementation India Limited and Indian
Oil Corporation Limited and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-29012/10/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 67/2012
Date of Passing Order-10th September, 2013
BETWEEN:
1.
M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.,
Contractor of IOCL Refinery Project,
At./Po. Jhimani Paradip, Jagatsinghpur,Orissa.
2.
The Deputy General Manager,
ITD Cementation India Ltd.
Regd. Office-1st Floor, Dani Wooler
Compound-158, Vidyanagar Marg,
Kalika, Santacruz, East Mumbai-400 098.
3.
The Deputy General Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Refinery Project,
At./Po. Jhimani, Paradip, P.S./Dist.
Jagatsinghpur.
... 1st Party-Managements
AND
Shri Ganga Sagar Patra,
S/o. Goutam Patra,
Vill. Majurai, Sailo, Govindapur, Cuttack.
... 2nd Party-Workman
APPEARANCES:
Shri R.G. Shetty,
...
For the 1st Party-
Sr. General Manager.
Management No. 1 & 2.
None
...
For the 1st Party-
Management No. 3.
Shri Ganga Sagar
...
For himself, the 2nd Party-
Patra.
Workman.
ORDER
Case taken up. Senior General Manager of I.T.D.
Cementation India Limited on behalf of the 1st Party-
Management No. 1 and 2 and the 2nd Party-workman in
person are present. None is present of the 1st Party-
Management N. 3, who was subsequently made party to
the reference.
2. The parties present have entered into a settlement
regarding the present dispute and a memorandum of
settlement in Form-H has already been filed on record, which
has been verified today by the parties present.
3. The 2nd Party-workman states that he has now no
grievance regarding the dispute with any of the
Managements as he has settled the dispute with the 1st
Party-Management No. 1 and 2 and received the amount
agreed upon. A receipt of payment has also been filed.
Therefore no dispute remains to be adjudicated upon.
4. Accordingly the reference is decided in terms of
the memorandum of settlement which shall form part of the
order.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2780.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ v#.k
daLVªD'ku ,aM esllZ thñ,lñ vVoky lqfdank ØksekbV ekbal ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj mudh deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@17@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhunaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Arun Consturction/M/s G.S. Atwal,
Sukinda Chromite Mines and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-29012/17/2011-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
7098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.—cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 45/2012
Date of Passing Order—8th March, 2013
BETWEEN:
1.
The M/s. Arun Construction,
Sub-contractor of M/s. G.S. Atwal,
At. Kanehipur, Po. Jajpur Road,
Dt. Jajpur-755 019. (Orissa)
2.
M/s G.S. Atwal, Contractor of
Sukinda Chromite Mines, At./Po. Kalarangiatta,
PS. Kaliapani, Jajpur.
....... 1st Party-Managements
AND
Shri Krupasindhu Mohanto,
S/o. Krutibas Mohanto, At. 1, Birshanagar,
Po. Kalarangiatta Ps. Kaliapani, Dist. Jajpur, Orissa
...... 2nd Party-Workman
APPEARANCES:
None
...
For the 1st Party-
Managements No. 1 & 2.
None
...
For the 2nd Party-
Workman.
ORDER
A reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act was made to this Tribunal by the Government of India
vide letter No. L-29012/17/2011-IR(M) dated 13.4.2012.
2. The 2nd Party-workman in pursuance of the letter
of reference has to file the statement of claim within fifteen
days of the receipt of letter of reference, but the 2nd Party-
workman has not filed any statement of claim within the
stipulated period allowed in the letter of reference. Thereafter
a notice was issued to him through registered post on
27.9.2012 fixing 6.11.2012 for filing of statement of claim,
but the 2nd Party-workman did not respond to this notice.
Again a notice on 2.1.2013 under ordinary post and a notice
on 15.1.2013 under registered post were issues to him, but
neither the 2nd Party-workman turned up nor filed any
statement of claim. A period of nearly ten months has
expired and no steps have been taken by the 2nd Party-
workman to pursue his case. Therefore it seems that the
2nd Party-workman is not interested in pursuing his case.
Either he is not interested in further prosecuting his case
or he might have settled the dispute amicably with the 1st
Party-Management out of the court. Therefore, under these
circumstances, a no dispute award has to be passed in the
case. Accordingly a no dispute award is passed.
3. The reference is answered accordingly in the above
lines.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2781.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ v#.k
mn~;ksx dViky ØksekbV ekbal 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 56@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@22@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Arun Udyog, Katpal Chromite Mines
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-29012/22/2011-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.—cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 56/2012
Date of Passing Order—8th March, 2013
BETWEEN:
1.
M/s. Arun Udyog,
Katpal Chromite Mines, FACOR,
At. Dahanigadia, Charampa, Dist. Bhadrak.
....... 1st Party-Management
AND
Shri Rajkumar Singh Munda,
S/o, Shri Birsingh Munda,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7099
At. Ostapal, Po. Kansa, Dist. Jajpur,
Orissa.
....... 2nd Party-Workman.
APPEARANCES:
None
—
For the 1st Party-Management.
None
—
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
The Government of India has referred an industrial
dispute vide its letter No. L-29012/22/2011-IR(M), dated
1.5.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
2. The 2nd Party-workman in response to the order
of reference was required to file his statement of claim within
fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference, but he
failed to file any statement of claim within that period. Hence
a notice under registered cover was issued to him on
27.9.2012, but no response was received from him. Then
again a notice under registered cover was issued to him on
22.1.2013 calling upon him to file his statement of claim by
6.3.2013. But neither he appeared in the court nor filed any
statement of claim.
3. The reference was received in this Tribunal on
17.5.2012 and a period of nearly ten months is to expire, but
the 2nd Party-workman has not taken any steps to
prosecute his case. He does not either seem to be interested
in the case or has settled the dispute with the 1st Party-
Management outside the court. Therefore it will be of no
use if the case is kept pending any more. Under these
circumstances a no dispute award is to be passed in the
case. Accordingly no-dispute award is passed.
4. The reference is answered in the light of above
observations.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2782.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iznhi
ekbfuax ,aM daLVªD'ku izkbosV 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@48@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2013
S.O. 2782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Pradeep Mining & Construction (P)
Limited and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 12/12/2013.
[No. L-29012/48/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 16/2013
Date of Passing Order-22nd July, 2013
BETWEEN:
M/s. Pradeep Mining & Construction (P) Ltd.,
Chorda, Jaipur Road, Jaidpur, Odisha.
...1st Party-Management
AND
Their workman Shri Ramakanta Mohanta,
Vill. Badakhatia, Po. Odisha, Via Mothakoragala
Bhuban, Dist. Dhenkanal, Odisha.
...2nd Party-Workman
APPEARANCES:
None.
...
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
...
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2nd Party-
workman has not turned up and filed any statement of
claim despite sending notices through ordinary post on
28.3.2013 and registered post on 31.5.2013, though he was
required to file his statement of claim complete with relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal
within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference.
Nearly a peiod of five months has expired since the receipt
of reference, but the 2nd Party-workman has not even taken
any steps to prosecute his case. Without pleadings of the
parties the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon, as referred
by the Government. Hence the reference is liable to be
returned unanswered to the Government.
2. Accordingly the reference is returned unanswered
to the Government for necessary action at its end.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
7100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2783.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/
;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/
;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k
jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
Øe
jktLo xkao ds uke
rglhy dk uke
ftyk
la-
1-
iqj] eq>jkl
HkhyokM+k
HkhyokMk
[la- ,l&38013@79@2013&,l-,l-1]
tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 2783.—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 January 2014 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 (i) 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 Rajasthan namely:—
Sl.
Name of the
Tehsil
District
No.
village/area
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
Pur, Mujharas
Bhilwara
Bhilwara
[No. S-38013/79/2013-S.S.1]
GEORGEKUTTY T.L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2784.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k mM+hlk
jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
^^ftyk xatke dh dfufl rglhy esa mn;iqj] xksikyiqj ,oa
ukjk;.kiqj ds jktLo xkao**
[la- ,l&38013@81@2013&,l-,l-1]
tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 2784.—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 January 2014 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 villages of
Udayapur, Gopalpur and Narayanpur in the Tahsil Konisi
in the District of Ganjam.
[No. S-38013/81/2013-S.S.1]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2785.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ muhVsd
ok;jysl ukWFkZ izkbosV fyfeVsM nsgjknwu 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@125@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] lsD'ku vkWfQlj
New Delhi, 18th December, 2013
S.O. 2785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Unitech Wireless (North) Pvt. Ltd.,
Dehradun and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 18/12/13.
[No. L-42012/125/2012-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
PRESENT:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 09/13
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7101
Sh. Suman Singh,
67, Gangal, Panditwari,
Post Ganghora,
Dehradun.
Versus
Unitech Wireless (North) Pvt. Ltd,
Dehradun.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-42012/125/2012-IR(DU) dated
01.02.13 referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for the adjudication:—
"Whether the action of management of Walsons
Services Pvt. Ltd. Secruitas India (Trade Name) in
terminating the services of Shri Suman Singh, Shri Ram
Gopal and Shri M.S. Negi w.e.f. 01.10.2011, without
complying with 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 is justified, if not to
what relief he is entitled to?"
On 18/02/13 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 9/13 and claimant was called
upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date
of service of notice. Which was required to be accompanied
with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant has not
filed claim statement inspite of sufficient opportunities. On
23/09/13 this Tribunal directed management to file response
to the reference made to this Tribunal.
In compliance of which management on 25.10.13 filed
response wherein management alleged as follows:—
Sir,
Most humbly and respectfully we beg to submit the
following facts before this honorable court for perusal and
consideration:
That the above cases related to the complainant
namely M/s. Suman Singh ID No. 11078, Mahavir Singh
Negi ID No. 9550 and Ram Gopal ID.No. 11080 was to be
heard on different dates like 05.04.2013, 12.06.2013,
26.07.2013, 19.08.2103, 23.09.2013.
That on 05.04.2013 we had prayed to Hon'ble Court
to provide us copy of the complain of the Complainant.
That we have never been provided any copy of
complaint of the complainant since the complainant are
frequently absenting from appearance before the Hon'ble
Court in spite of given 6 dates for appearance.
That in absence of the complainant and non receipt
the copy of the complaint the matter is unnecessarily
lingering in the Hon'ble Court for its disposal.
That it is pertinent to mentioned here before this
Hon'ble Court that I being the Authorized Representative
of M/s. Walsons Services Pvt. Ltd. attended all the dates
fixed by this Hon'ble Court for hearing.
In pursuant to above facts, I beg to submit before
this Hon'ble Court to close this matter for ever reason being
absence of the complainant on all the dates fixed by this
Hon'ble Court, or this Hon'ble may take any other action
which it thinks fit in the interest of Justice.
Prayed Accordingly,
Jasvant Chauhan
Sr. Manager (Personnel)
And
Authorized Representative.
In this background this Tribunal has no option except
to pass No Dispute Award in light of averments made in
the aforesaid response by the management.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:- 02/12/2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2786.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fg;j c;
ifCy'M Fks vokMZ ¼jsQ uks- 202@2012½ E;qufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ+
MsYgh ds izca/ki= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
202@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@68@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] lsD'ku vkWfQlj
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 2786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 202/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/12/13.
[No. L-42011/68/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL No. 1, DELHI
I.D. No. 202-2012
The President,
Nagar Nigam Karamachri Sangh,
Delhi Pardesh, P-2/624,
Sultanpuri, Delhi-110045
…Workman
7102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Commissioners,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110 006.
…Management
AWARD
A chowkidar employed at MC Primary School,
Nawada II, Delhi, by Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(in short the Corporation) claimed payment of overtime
allowance, since he was made to work beyond normal duty
hours. His claim was not conceded to by the Corporation.
He approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh (Delhi)
(in short the union) for redressal of his grievances. The
union served notice on the Corporation seeking overtime
allowance for duties performed in excess of normal working
hours, wages for weekly holidays, gazettee holidays and
casual leaves, which notice was not responded to. A dispute
was raised before the Conciliation Officer. Since the
Corporation contested the claim, conciliation proceedings
ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report,
submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication vide Order No. L-42011/68/2010-IR(DU) dated
04.04.2001, with following terms:
"Whether action of the management of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying overtime wages to
the workman, Shri Baljeet Singh, S/o late Shri Hari Singh,
Chowkidar for performing 10 (ten) hours duty per day since
the regularization of the workman Shri Baljeet Singh with
effect form 01.04.1984 is justified or not? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to and from which date?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Chowkidar,
namely, Shri Baljeet Singh opted not to file his claim
statement with the Tribunal.
Notice was sent to Shri Baljeet Singh by registered
post on 27.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim statement
before the Tribunal on or before 17.01.2013. This notice
was sent to him through the union, at P-2/624, Sultanpuri,
Delhi the address provided by the appropriate Government
in order of reference. Neither the claimant nor the union
responded to the notice, so sent.
4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant
to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by
registered post 22.01.2013 calling upon him to file claim
statement before the Tribunal on 11.02.2013. Notices were
transmitted to the claimant by registered post on 12.02.2013
and 12.03.2013 asking him to file his claim statement on or
before 08.03.2013 and 09.04.2013 respectively. Lastly, notice
dated 10.04.2013 was sent by registered post commanding
the claimant to file his claim statement before the Tribunal
on or before 24.05.2013. Neither the postal articles, referred
above, were received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained affected in the
period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notices were severed
upon the claimant. Despite service of these notices, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf.
5. Since onus of the question referred for adjudication
was there on the Corporation, it was called upon to file its
response to the reference order. Corporation filed its
response, pleading therein that the claim was not properly
espoused by the union, hence liable to be rejected. It further
asserted that the dispute has been raised at a belated stage,
hence it became stale. The appropriate Government cannot
refer such a dispute for adjudication, as it has become
stale. The dispute is liable to be rejected on this count also,
claims the Corporation.
6. The Corporation projects that claimant was getting
overtime allowance @ Rs. 625.00 upto a maximum of
50 hours in a month in accordance with circular dated
15.03.1997. For work performed on sundays and holidays,
the chowkidars gets compensatory leave in lieu thereof,
hence not entitled to overtime allowance. Chowkidars are
entitled to 15 days casual leave, 3 national holidays and 6
other holidays of their choice in every calendar year. Their
normal duty hours are 10 hours per day and previously
chowkidars were entitled to 24 hours rest (one day) in
fortnight. Now, a chowkidar is getting overtime allowance
of 100 hours per month in accordance with circular dated
09.05.2011. Details of overtime allowance granted to the
claimant from June '88 to March 2013 are annexed as
Annexure C with the response. In view of these facts,
claimant is not entitled to any relief, claims the corporation.
7. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came
forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.
Shri Abhinav Kumar, authorized representative, assisted
by Shri Jagdish Chandra, U.D.C. raised submissions on
behalf of the Corporation. I have given my careful
considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and
cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues
involved in the controversy are as follows:
8. At the outset, it has been argued that the dispute
has not acquired status of an industrial dispute since it has
not been validly espoused by the union. For an answer,
definition of the term industrial dispute is to be construed.
For sake of convenience, definition of the term ''industrial
dispute", as defined by Section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7103
‘‘(k) "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or
difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workmen, or between
workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or with the conditions of labour, of any
person’’.
9. The definition of ''industrial dispute, referred above,
can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of dispute (2)
parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and employers,
(b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen and workmen,
(3) subject matter of the dispute, which should be connected
with—(i) employment or non employment, or (ii) terms of
employment, or (iii) condition of labour of any person, and
(4) it should relate to an ''industry''.
10. The definition of ''industrial dispute'' is worded in
very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the
meaning given to word ''workmen'' it would seem to include
all ''employers'', all ''employments'' and all ''workmen'',
whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be.
Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute
between the employers and employers and workmen and
workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must
be an employee or a class of employees. The first point,
therefore, to be noted, perhaps self evident, is that the
phrase ''employer and workmen'', the plural may include
singular on either side or any permutation of singular or
plural, the masculine including the feminine. In order,
therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or
difference or a dispute is an ''an industrial dispute'' or not,
it must first be determined whether the workman concerned
or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of
clause (s) of section 2 of the Act. Here in the case, the
Corporation does not dispute that the claimant is workman
within the meaning of clause(s) of section 2 of the Act.
11. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of
''industrial dispute'' in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1) LLJ
500] and ruled that the expression ''any person'' in clause (k)
of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such
limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the
two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real
dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in
the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be
capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the
dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person
regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose
employment, non employment, terms of employment or
conditions of labour, as case may be, the parties dispute
for a direct or substantial interest. Where workman raised
a dispute as against their employment the person regarding
whose employment, non employer, terms or employment
or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised need not be
strictly speaking ''workman'' within the meaning of the Act,
but must be one in whose employment, non employer, terms
of employment, or conditions of labour the workmen as a
class have a direct or substantial interest. The observations
made by the Apex Court are to be extracted thus:
''We also agree with the expression ''any person'' is
not co extensive with any workman, particular or otherwise,
equal with other, that the crucial test is one of community
of interest and the person regarding whom the dispute is
raised must be one in whose employment, non employment,
terms of employment, conditions of labour (as the case
may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or
substantial interest. Whether such direct or substantial
interest has been established in a particular case will depend
on its facts and circumstances."
12. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. [1958
(2) LLJ 660] the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute
need not be a dispute between the employer and his
workman and that the definition of the expression
''industrial dispute'' is wide enough to cater a dispute raised
by the employer's workman with regard to non employment
of others, who may not be employed as workman at the
relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of
Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that in each
case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has
acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is
whether at the date of reference, the dispute was taken up
as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer
against whom, the dispute is raised by an individual
workman or by an appreciable number of workmen. In order,
therefore, to convert an individual dispute into an industrial
dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up
by the union of employees of the establishment or by an
appreciable number of the employees of the establishment.
As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is
concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally
presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are
members of such unions generally have a continuity of
interest with an individual employee who is one of their
fellow workman. But difficulty arise when the cause of a
workman, in a particular establishment is sponsored by a
union which is not of the workmen of that establishment
but is one of which membership is open to workmen of
their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a
case a union which has only microscopic number of the
workmen as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute arising
between the workmen and the management. A
representative character of the union has to be gathered
from the strength of the actual number of co workers
sponsoring the dispute. The mere fact that a substantial
number of workmen of the establishment in which the
concerned workman was employee were also members of
the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be
shown that they were connected together and arrived at
an understanding by a resolution or by other means and
collectively submitted the dispute.
7104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. The expression "industrial disputes" has been
construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes,
because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu Nath Gopal
Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court ruled as to
what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute. It was
laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the employer and a
single workman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2) it can
not be per-se be an industrial dispute but may become if it
is taken up by a trade union or a number of workmen. In
Dharampal Prem Chand [1965(1) LLJ 668] it was commanded
by the Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman
cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported
either by his union or in the absence of a union by
substantial number of workmen. Same law was laid in the
case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970(1)
LLJ 132]. However in Western India Match Company [1970
(II) LLJ 256], the Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona
Kuchi Tea Estate's case [1958(1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a
dispute relating to "any person becomes a dispute where
the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose
employment, non employment, terms of employment or
conditions of labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or
substantial interest".
14. What a substantial or considerable number of
workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular
facts of the case. The fact that an "industrial dispute", is
supported by other workmen will have to be established
either in the form of a resolution of the union of which
workman may be member or of the workmen themselves
who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the
mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an
"industrial dispute" concerning an individual workman is
referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen
of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred
that the individual dispute has been converted into an
"industrial dispute". The Tribunal has therefore, to consider
the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually
espoused the cause of the concerned workman by
participating in the particular resolution of the Union. In
the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal, it
cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the
character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not
acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.
Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial
dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a
resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen.
What is necessary is that there should be some express or
collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of
the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman
as their own cause. Law to this effect was laid in P.
Somasundrameran [1970(1) LLJ 558].
15. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a
registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it
is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen
either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored
the workman's cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an
industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970(1) LLJ
507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were
filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual
workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently
taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co
workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was
not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five
representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed
workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were
espoused by the new union. yet unregistered and
unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these
disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized
union does not mean that they were not "industrial dispute".
16. It is not expedient that same union should remain
incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute
may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,
through a particular union for making such a dispute an
"industrial dispute", while the workman may be represented
before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 36 of the Act
by a member of executive or office bearer of altogether
another union. The crux of the matter is that the dispute
should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen.
It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or
conducted only by a registered trade union. Even if a trade
union ceases to be registered trade union during the
continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would
not affect the maintainability of the order of reference. Law
to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon
India Limited [1974(II) LLJ 34]. For ascertaining as to
whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an
individual dispute, the test is whether on the date of the
reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the
union of the workmen of the employer against whom the
dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an
appreciable number of the workman. In other words, the
validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be
judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the
reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause
occurs. Reference can be made to a precedent in Western
India Match Co. Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ. 256].
17. Here in case, not even an iota of facts are brought
over the record to the effect that the union took up the
cause of the claimant as their own. It is also not shown that
the members of the union had shown their collective will in
favour of the cause of the claimant. Thus it is evident that
there is a complete vaccum of the facts to the effect that
the union espoused the cause of the claimant. Resultantly
there is no material to conclude to the effect that the dispute
acquired status of an industrial dispute. The reference is
liable to be answered against the claimant on that score.
18. Corporation contest the dispute on the count
that no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising a
dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 28] 2013@ikS"k 7] 1935
7105
remained uncontroverted. The object of the Act is to protect
workman against victimization by the employer and ensure
termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The
Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and
economic principles for adjustment of confliciting interests.
Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial
adjudication, keeping in view the social and economic
conditions, the needs of the workmen, the requirement of
the industry, social justice, relative interests of the parties
and common good. These norms have given rights to the
industrial employees what may be called industrial rights,
as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes
as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by
resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining.
This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of
employers and a bonafide labour union. Policy behind this
is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour
practices. What imparts to the dispute of a workman the
character of an "industrial dispute" is that it affects the
right of the workmen as a class.
19. An industrial dispute comes into existence when
the employer and the workan are at variance and the
dispute/difference is connected with the employment or
non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions
of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when
a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it is
rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement
Corporation Ltd. [1968(1) LLJ 834], the Apex Court has
held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government
to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by
the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,
cannot become an industrial disute. Hence, an industrial
dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand
is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and
it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation
Pvt. Ltd. (1970 Lab. I.C. 421), High Court of Delhi went a
step ahead and held that"...demand by the workman must
be raised first on the management and rejected by it, before
and industrial dispute can be said to raise and exist and
that the making of such a demand to the Conciliation Officer
and its communication by him to the management, who
rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an
industrial dispute."
20. The above decision was followed by Orissa High
Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab. I.C. 285) and
Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt. Ltd.
(1993 Lab. I.C. 99). However, the Apex court in Bombay
Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had ruled that an
industrial dispute must be in existence or apprehended on
the date of reference. If, therefore, a demand has been made
by the workman and it has been rejected by the employer
before the date of reference, whether direct or through the
Conciliation Officer, it would constitute and industrial
dispute. In Shambhunath Goyal [1978(1) LLJ 484], the Apex
Court appreciated facts that the workman had not made a
formal demand for his reinstatement in service. However,
he had constested his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer
and claimed reinstatement. Against the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal to the Appellate
Authority, claiming reinstatement on the ground that his
dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he claimed
reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer in the course
of conciliation proceedings, which was contested by the
employer. Appreciating all these facts, the Apex Court
inferred that there was impeccable evidence that the
workmkan had perisistently demanded reinstatement,
rejection of which brought an industrial dispute into
existence.
21. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979(39)
FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath Goyal
had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. But it had
distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out that
decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement
Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by two Judge
bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded
that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd., in case of
any conflict between the two decision, must prevail. The
High Court held that making of the demand by the workman
on the management was sine qua non for giving rise to an
industrial dispute.
The High court of Madras in Management of Needle
Industrial [1986(1)LLJ 405] has held that dispute of
difference between management and the workman,
automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from
service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference
between the management and the workman. The Court
further observed that ''it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,
particular in section 2(k),that existence of the dispute as
such is not enough but then there should be a demand by
the workman on the management to give rise to an industrial
dispute''. However, this decision appears to be inconsistent
with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union of Journalists
(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra). No doubt, for
existence of an industrial dispute, there should be a demand
by the workman and refusal to grant it by the management.
However, a demand should be raised, cannot be a legal
notion of fixity and rigidity. Grievances of the workman
and demand for its redressal must be communicated to the
management. Means and mechanism of the communication
adopted are not matters of much significance, so long as
demand is that of the workman and it reaches the
management. Reference can be made to the precedent in
Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore Ltd. [1984 (2) LLJ 259].
23. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial
dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific
or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or prescribed
manner in which refusal should be communicated. For an
industrial dispute to come into existence, written claim is
not sine qua non. To read into the definition, requirement
7106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 28, 2013/PAUSA 7, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of written demand for bringing an industrial dispute into
existence would tantamount to rewriting the section,
announced the Apex Court in Shambunath Goya (supra).
In other works, oral demand and its rejection will as much
bring into existence an industrial dispute, as written one. If
facts and circumstances of the case show that the workman
had been making a demand, which the management had
been refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an
industrial dispute between the parties.
24. Since the claimant had not come forward to project
that demand notice was served on the corporation, under
these circumstances, stand taken by the corporation is to
be beleived. Corporation projects that no notice of demand
was served on it, before industrial dispute was raised before
the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging over the record
that it has been established that demand was raised on the
Corporation, which was rejected by it and as such, dispute
has not acquired status of an industrial dispute.
25. Turning to facts presented by the Corporation, it
emerges that the Corporation takes 10 hours dury from
Chowkidars. Keeping in view the nature of duties
performed, the Corporation was paying intermittent
allowance to Chowkidars for performing more than 10 hours
duty. Allowance was paid @ Rs. 130.00 per month for
performance of duty upto 12 hours, Rs. 180.00 per month
for duties performed for more than 12 hours but upto 16
hours and Rs. 190.00 per month for performing duties than
16 hours a day. Workers union agitated the issue and
demanded overtime allowance in lieu of intermittent
allowance. On the basis of the resolution, the Corporation,
vide its decision dated 15.03.1997 decided to pay overtime
allowance to the maximum limit of 50 hours. The said
allowance was paid @ 625.00 per month. Workers union
further demanded enhancement of maxima limit of overtime
allowance and in consideration of the said demand, the
Corporation started paying overtime allowance with a cap
of 100 hours a month. Now, the Corporation is paying
overtime allowance to Chowkidars at Rs.1250.00, in
pursuance of Officer Order dated 09.05.2011.
26. Annexure C, when scanned, highlights that from
January 98 till March 2011, overtime allowance was paid to
the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month. From April 2011 till
March 2013, overtime allowance has been paid to the
claimant @ 1250.00 per month. Therefore, it is emerging
over the record that overtime allowance is being paid to
the claimant in accordance with the circulars issued by the
Corporation from time to time.
27. Section 10 (1) of the Act does not prescribe any
period of limitation for making reference of the dispute for
adjudication. The works 'at any time' used in sub section (1)
of section 10 of Act does not admit of any limitation in
making an order of reference. Law of limitation, which might
bar any Civil Court from giving remedy in respect of lawful
rights, cannot be applied by Industrial Tribunals. However,
policy of industrial adjudication is that stale claim should
not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is
satisfactory explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd.
[1959 (2) LLJ 26], the Apex Court pointed out that though
there is no limitation prescribed in making reference of the
dispute to Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable
that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after
having arisen and on failure of conciliation proceedings.
In Western India Match Company [1970 (2) LLJ 256] the
Apex Court observed that in exercising its discretion,
Government will take into account time which has lapsed
between its earlier decision and the date when it decides to
consider it in the interest of justice and industrial peace to
make the reference for adjudication. Same view was taken
in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In Gurmail
Singh [2000 (1) 1080] Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the
reference on the ground that there was delay of 8 years in
raising the dispute, which delay was condoned by the Apex
Court and it was ordered that the workman would not be
entitled to any back wages for the period of 8 years but
would be entitled to 50% of wages from the date it raised
the dispute till the date of his reinstatement. In Prahalad
Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court approved the
award of the Tribunal in not granting any relief to the
workman who preferred the claim after a period of 13 years
without any reasonable or justifiable grounds. From above
decisions, it can be said that the law relating to delay in
raising or reference of dispute is berefit of any principles,
which can be easily comprehended by the litigants.
28. Claimant raised the dispute in respect of overtime
allowance paid to him with effect from 01.04.1994. Thus, it
is emerging over the record that the claimant had raised the
dispute after a long gap of 28 years. No explanation is
offered for this inordinate delay. It appears that there was
no industrial dispute in existence or could be even said to
have been apprehended in the year 2012, when the
appropriate Government applied its mind to the fact of the
present controversy.
29. In view of the above reasons, it is eviden that the
action of the Corporation in paying overtime allowance to
the claimant @ Rs. 625.00 per month till March 2011 and
thereafter Rs.1250.00 till date is in accordance with the
circulars issued from time to time. Claimant is not entitled
to overtime allowance more than the amount referred above.
Resultantly, action of the Corporation is found to be
justified. No relief is available to the claimant. An award is,
accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Goverment
for publication.
Dated : 20.08.2013
R. K. YADAV, 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.