x`g ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 28 iQjojh] 2014
dk-vk- 1065-—dsUæh; ljdkj ljdkjh LFkku (vizkf/Ñr vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs g,q uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds LraHk (2) esa o£.kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks] ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh gksus ds ukrs]
mDr vf/fu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, laink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS vkSj vkxs ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mDRk vf/dkjh ,sls LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds
Hkhrj ;k mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk (3) esa ;Fkk&fofu£n"V ljdkjh LFkku dh ckcr mDr vf/fu;e }kjk ;k mlds v/hu laink vf/dkfj;ksa dks
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj mudks vf/jksfir drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsxsa] vFkkZr~ %µ
lkj.kh
Øe la-
vf/dkjh
LFkkuh; lhek,a@ljdkjh LFkku
(1)
(2)
(3)
1
mi egkfujh{kd]
100 ,dM+ Hkwfe fofHkUUk Vkbi ds 348 DokVZj rFkk 240 toku cSjd
fo'ks"k lqj{kk lewg] xzsVj uks,Mk
lfgr 4 vU; xSj vkokfld Hkou miyC/ gS A
2
mi egkfujh{kd]
22-51 ,dM+ HkwfeA cSjdksa lfgr vkokfld ,oa xSj vkokfld
ljdkjh Hkou lqj{kk] efgikyiqj
Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k izLrkfor gS A
3
mi egkfujh{kd]
5-05 ,dM+ HkwfeA vkokfld Hkou dk fuekZ.k izLrkfor gS
fnYYkh esVªks jsy fuxe] fnYYkh
4
xzqi dekaMsaV lkdsr
vkokfld Hkou dk fuekZ.k izLrkfor gS A
5
xzqi dekaMsaV iVuk
0-35 ,dM+ dk;kZy; Hkou miyC/ gS
1221 GI/2014
(2767)
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- 13]
ubZ fnYyh, ekpZ 23—ekpZ 29] 2014] 'kfuokj@pS=k 2—pS=k 8] 1936
No. 13]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 23—MARCH 29, 2014, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 2—CHAITRA 8, 1936
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)
2768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6
ofj"B dekaMsaV] nwljh fjtoZ
158 ,dM+ HkwfeA xSj fjgk;'kh ,oa vkokfld Hkou fuekZ.kk/hu gSaA
cVkkfy;u] jkaph
7
xzqi dekaMsaV dksydkrk
3 ,dM+ Hkwfe dLck] dksydkrk esa
4 ,dM+ Hkwfe jktkjgkV] dksydkrk esa
dLck esa dk;kZy; Hkou miyC/ gS A jktkjgkV esa vkokfld DokVZjksa
ds fuekZ.k dk izLrko fn;k x;k gSA
8
xzqi dekaMsaV xqokgkVh
3-52 ,dM+ HkwfeA dk;kZy; Hkou miyC/ gSa A vkokfld DokVZjksa
ds fuekZ.k dk izLrko fn;k x;k gS A
9
xzqi dekaMsaV vgenkckn
4-75 ,dM+ Hkwfe A vkokfld ,oa xSj vkokfld DokVZjksa ds fuekZ.k
dk izLrko fn;k x;k gSA
10
xzqi dekaMsaV bykgkckn
vkokfld ,oa xSj vkokfld Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq bykgkckn fodkl
izkf/dj.k ls dk¯ynhiqje esa 4 ,dM+ Hkwfe v£tr dh xbZ gSA
11
T;s"B dekaMsaV] PkkSFkh fjtoZ
100 ,dM+ Hkwfe A 540 toku cSjd lfgr xSj vkokfld Hkouksa ds
cVkfy;u] f'koxaxbZ
fuEkkZ.k dk dk;Z izxfr ij gS fofHkUu Vkbi ds 520 vkokfld DokVZjksa
dk fuekZ.k izLrkfor gS A
12
T;s"B dekaMsaV] ukSaoh fjtoZ
volajpukRed O;oLFkk ds fy, vle ljdkj ls 99-173 ,dM+
cVkfy;u] xqokgkVh
Hkwfe v£tr dh xbZ gSA
13
T;s"B dekaMsaV] nloh fjtoZ
vkokfld ,oa xSj vkokfld vkoklksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq dukZVd
cVkfy;u] cSaxyq#
ljdkj ls 55-36 ,dM+ Hkwfe v£tr dh xbZ gS lhek nhoky dk
fuekZ.k izxfr/hu gSA
¹iQk- la- MCY;w&19022@vkokl@[email protected]@ih,iQ&IIº
vkj- ,l- f[kph] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 28th February, 2014
S.O. 1065.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the Officers mentioned in column(2) of the
Table below, being Gazetted Officers of the Government, to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act, and further
directs that the said Officers shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on such Estate Officers
by or under the said Act, within such local limits, or in respect of public premises as specified in column (3) of the said Table
namely :
TABLE
S.No.
Officers
Local limits / Public premises
(1 )
(2)
(3)
1
Deputy Inspector General,
100 acres of land.348 quarters of
Special Security Group
various types and other non-residential
Greater Noida
buildings including 4 numbers 240 men
barracks are available.
2
Deputy Inspector General,
22.51 acres of land. Residential and
Government Building
non-residential buildings including
Security Mahipalpur
barracks are proposed for construction.
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2769
3
Deputy Inspector General, Delhi
5.05 acres of land. Residential building
Metro Rail Corporation Delhi
are proposed for construction.
4
Group Commandant, Saket
Residential quarters are proposed for
construction.
5
Group Commandant, Patna
0.35 acres. Office building. is available.
6
Senior Commandant, 2nd Reserve
158 acres of land. Non-residential and
Battalion, Ranchi
residential buildings are under construction.
7
Group Commandant, Kolkata
3 acres at Kasba, Kolkata
4 acres at Rajarhat, Kolkata.
Office buildings are available at Kasba.
Construction of residential quarters at
Rajarhat has been proposed.
8
Group Commandant, Guwahati
3.52 acres of land. Office buildings are available.
Construction of residential quarters has been
proposed.
9
Group Commandant, Ahmedabad
4.75 acres of land. Construction of
residential and non-residential buildings is
under progress.
10
Group Commandant, Allahabad
4 acres
of land
acquired at Kalindipuram
from Allahabad Development Authority for
construction of residential and non-residential
buildings.
11
Senior Commandant, 4th Reserve
100 acres of land. Construction of non-
Battalion, Shivagangai
residential buildings including 540 men
barracks are under progress. Construction of
520 residential quarters of various types has
been proposed.
12
Senior Commandant, 9th Reserve
99.173 acres of land has been acquired from
Government Battalion, Guwahati of Assam for
infrastructural set-up.
13
Senior Commandant, 10th
55.36 acres of land has been acquired from
Reserve Battalion, Bangalore
Government of Karnataka for construction of
residential and non-residential accommodation.
Construction of boundary wall is under
progress.
[F. No.W-19022/Accomm/2/Works/PF-II]
R. S. KHICHI, Under Secy.
(1 )
(2)
(3)
2770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2014
dk-vk- 1066-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/
) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu vkSj varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk Jh
vfer xks;y (tUe frfFk % 03&4&1961) dks mudh fu;qfDr dh
vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd tks Hkh igys gks] vkU/zk caSd ds funs'kd e.My esa
va'k&dkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@54@2013&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 18th February, 2014
S. O. 1066.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Amit Goel (DoB: 03.04,1961) as Part-
time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors of
Andhra Bank for a period of three years, from the date of
notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/54/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2014
dk-vk- 1067-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh
daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye 2 esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye 3 esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa
ds LFkku ij dkWye (1) esa fofu£n"V cSadksa esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd ukfer
djrh gS A
(1)
(2)
(3)
cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk
MkW- ds- ih- Ñ".ku] vij lfpo]
Jh vkyksd fuxe
vk£Fkd dk;Z foHkkx
lsUVªy cSad vkWiQ bafM;k
Jh lkSjHk xxZ] la;qDRk lfpo]
MkW ds-ih- Ñ".ku
ih,iQ&II, O;; foHkkx
¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&I]
eksgEen eqLriQk] funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th February, 2014
S.O. 1067.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The Nationalized
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby nominates the
persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks specifiied in column (1)
thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:—
(1)
(2)
(3)
Bank of Broda
Dr. K. P. Krishnan, Additional Secretary,
Shri Alok Nigam
Department of Economic Affairs
Central Bank of India
Shri Saurabh Garg, Joint Secretary,
Dr. K. P. Krishanan
P F. II, Department of Expenditure
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
MOHD. MUSTAFA, Director
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2771
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1068-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3ds
[kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
,rn~}kjk iatkc uS'kyu cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh jkds'k lsBh
(tUe frfFk % 30&4&1957) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh
rkjh[k ls 30&4&2017 rd vFkkZRk~ muds vf/o£"krk dh vk;q izkIr
djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
bykgkckn cSd ds vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr
djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@4@2012&chvks&I]
euh"k oqQekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2014
S.O. 1068.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri
Rakesh Sethi (DoB: 30.04,1957), Executive Director, Punjab
National Bank as Chairman and Managing Director,
Allahabad Bank from the date of his taking over the charge
of the post and up to 30.4.2017 i.e. the date of his
superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 4/4/2012-BO-I]
MANISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1069-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/
) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj (2)ds
lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu vkSj varj.k)
vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds [kaM
(p) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] Jh nhid Mh-
lkear (tUe frfFk % 03&10&1959)] izca/d] bafM;u cSad dks
mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds
fy, vFkok bafM;u cSad esa muds vf/dkjh ds in ij cus jgus rd
vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] bafM;u cSad
ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/dkjh deZpkjh funs'kd ds :i esa
fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@15@2012&chvks&I]
euh"k oqQekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2014
S.O. 1069.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (f) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India hereby
appoints Shri Deepak D. Samant (DoB: 03.10.1959)
Manager, Indian Bank as Officer Employee Director on the
Board of Directors of Indian Bank, for a period of three
years from the date of notification of his appointment or
until he ceases to be an officer of the Indian Bank or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/15/2012-BO-I]
MANISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1070-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk
(3) ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lsUVªy cSad vkiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d MkW- vkj-
,l- laxkiqjs (tUe frfFk % 25&02&1958) dks muds }kjk inHkkj
xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 28&4&2018 vFkkZRk~ muds }kjk vf/o£"krk
dh vk;q izkIr dj ysus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh
igys gks] iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa
fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014
S.O. 1070 .—In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. R.
S. Sangapure (DoB: 25.02.1958) General Manager, Central
Bank of India as Executive Director, Punjab National Bank
from the date of taking over the charge of the post and
upto 28-02-2018 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of
superannuation or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
2772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1071-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds [kaM (x) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye (3) esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye (2) esa
fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij dkye (1) esa fofu£n"V cSadksa esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k
gksus rd] ukfer djrh gS :—
Øe
cSad dk uke
fo|eku funs'kdksa ds uke
izLrkfor O;fDr dk uke
la-
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
cSad vkWiQ bafM;k
Jh ih- vkj- jfoeksgu]
Jh ,l- ,l- ckfjd] {ks=kh; funs'kd] xqokgkVh]
eq[; egkizca/d
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] LVs'ku jksM ikucktkj]
xqokgkVh&781001
2-
lsUVªy cSad vkWiQ bafM;k
Jh lyhe xaxk/ju]
Jh 'ks[kj HkVukxj] {ks=kh; funs'kd] dkuiqj]
ihlhth,e ,oa {ks=kh;
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] iksLV ckDl la- 82 ,oa 142]
funs'kd
egkRek xka/h ekxZ] dkuiqj&208001
3-
bafM;u vksojlht cSad
Jh ,l- oh- jk?kou]
Jh fueZy pan] {ks=kh; funs'kd] fr#ouariqje]
eq[; egkizca/d]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] csdjh taD'ku]
ukxiqj
fr#ouariqje&6950033
4-
vkU/zk cSad
Jh ds- vkj- vuank]
Jh bZ- bZ- dkFkZd] eq[; egkizca/d] dksydkrk]
ihlhth,e]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] 15] usrkth lqHkk"k jksM]
eqEcbZ
dksydkrk&700001
5-
cSad vkWiQ egkjk"Vª
lqJh deyk jktu]
MkW- ,l jktkxksiky] eq[; egkizca/d] eqEcbZ]
eq[; egkizca/d]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] eq[; Hkou] ,lch,l ekxZ
eqEcbZ
iQksVZ eqEcbZ&400001
6-
;qukbVsM cSad vkWiQ
Jherh lqjs'k ejk.Mh]
Jherh ikoZrh oh- lqanje eq[; egkizca/d] eqEcbZ]
bafM;k
eq[; egkizca/d]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] lfpo foHkkx] 16oka ry]
eqEcbZ
dsUæh; dk;kZy; Hkou] ,lch,l jksM]
eqEcbZ&400001
¹iQk- la- 6@3@2011&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014
S.O. 1071.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The Natinalized
Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Secheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates the
persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Directors of nationalized banks specified in column (1) therof in place
of the persons specified in column (2) of said Table , with immediate effect and until further orders :—
Sl. No.
Name of the Bank
Name of the Existing Director
Name of the Persons proposed
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
Bank of India
Shri P. R. Ravimohan, CGM
Shri S.S. Barik, Regional Director, Guwahati,
Reserve Bank of India, Station Road Panbazar,
Guwahati-781001.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2773
2.
Central Bank
Shri Salim Gangadharan,
Shri Shekhar Bhatnagar, Regional Director,
of India
PCGM & Regional Director
Kanpur,
Reserve Bank of India, P.B. No. 82 and 142
Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kanpur-208001.
3.
Indian
Shri S.V. Raghavan, CGM,
Shri Nirmal Chand, Regional Director,
Overseas Bank
Nagpur
Thriuvananthapuram,
Reserve Bank of India, Bakery Junction,
Thiruvananthapuram-6950033.
4.
Andhra Bank
Shri K. R. Ananda,
Shri E.E. Karthak, CGM, Kolkata,
PCGM, Mumbai
Reserve Bank of India, 15, Netaji Subhas
Road, Kolkata-700001.
5.
Bank of Maharashtra
Ms. Kamala Rajan, CGM,
Dr. S. Rajagopal, CGM, Mumbai,
Mumbai
Reserve Bank of India, Main Building, SBS
Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001.
6.
United Bank
Smt. Surekha Marandi,
Smt. Parvathy V. Sundaram, CGM, Mumbai.
of India
CGM, Mumbai
Reserve Bank of India, Secretary’s Department,
16th Floor, Central Office Buidling SBS Road,
Mumbai-400001.
[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1072-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e] 1981 (1981 dk 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (Ä) ds
mi&[kaM (i ) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh lqtkrk esgrk] lfpo (bZvkj)] fons'k ea=kky; dks]
vxys vkns'k gksus rd Jh ihukd jatu pØorhZ ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad (,fDte cSad) ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ds
:i esa ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 24@27@2002&vkbZ,iQ&I]
v'kksd vxzoky] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1072-—In pursuance of the powers conferred by Sub-Clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of
the Export-Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981) , the Central Government hereby nominates Smt. Sujata Mehta,
Secretary (ER), Ministry of External Affairs, as Director on the Board of Directors of Export-Import Bank of India (Exim Bank)
vice Shri Pinak Ranjan, Chakravarty until further orders.
[F. No. 24/27/2002-IF-I]
ASHOK AGGARWAL, Under Secy.
fo|qr ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1073-—lkoZtfud LFkku (vukf/Ñr vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk&3 }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fuEufyf[kr rkfydk ds dkye (1) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/fu;e ds
iz;kstu gsrq Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh ds lerqY; in ij lEink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS tks mDr rkfydk ds dkye (2) esa
laxr izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr lkoZtfud LFkyksa dh Jsf.k;ksa ds laca/ esa vius lacaf/r vf/dkj {ks=k dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj mDr vf/fu;e
ds }kjk vFkok mlds varxZr lEink vf/dkfj;ksa dks iznÙk dh xbZ 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vkSj dÙkZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djsaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
2774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rkfydk
vf/dkjh dk uke o inuke
lkoZtfud ifjlj dh Js.kh ,oa vf/dkj {ks=k dh LFkkuh; lhek
(1)
(2)
1- ¶Jh iqjus'k oqQekj fnokaxu] mi egkizca/d (ekuo lalk/u)
us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)
us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)
ls lacaf/r vFkok blds }kjk iV~Vs ij fy, x, vkSj bldh
rykbZiYyh dks;yk [kuu ifj;kstuk] ftyk jk;x<+] NÙkhlx<+
rykbZiYyh dks;yk [kuu ifj;kstuk ykbywaxk jksM] ?kj?kksM+k] ftyk
jk;x<+&496111] NÙkhlx<+ ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds vUrxZr
vkus okys lHkh LFky A¸
2- ¶Jh lathr oqQekj ¯et] mi egkizca/d (ekuo lalk/u)
us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)
us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)
ls lacaf/r vFkok blds }kjk iV~Vs ij fy, x, vkSj mldh Mqyaxk
Mqyaxk dks;yk [kuu ifj;kstuk] ftyk lqUnjx<+] vksfM'kk
dks;yk [kuu ifj;kstuk] IykV la[;k 681@26] fe'ku jksM]
ftyk&lqUnjx<+&770001] vksfM'kk ds iz'kklfud f u;a=k.k ds
varxZr vkus okys lHkh LFkyA¸
¹iQk- la- 8@6@1992&FkeZy&I&ikVZ&19]
th-lkbZ izlkn] la;qDr lfpo
fVIIk.kh % eq[; vf/lwpuk fnukad 3 iQjojh] 2011 ds dk-vk 481 ds }kjk izdkf'kr dh xbZ A
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014
S.O. 1073.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises, (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the
following table, being officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government of India, to be Estate Officers for
the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers
by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in
column (2) of the said Table, namely :—
TABLE
Name and designation of officer
Categories of public premises and local limits of
jurisdiction
(1 )
(2)
1. "Shri Purnesh Kumar Dewangan,
All premises belonging to or taken on lease
Deputy General Manager (Human
by the National Thermal Power Corporation
Resources) National Thermal
Limited (NTPC Limited) and under the
Power Corporation Limited (NTPC
administrative control of its Talaipalli Coal
Limited) at Talaipalli Coal Mining
Mining Project, Lailunga Road, Gharghoda,
Project, District- Raigarh,
District- Raigarh-496111, Chhattisgarh."
Chhattisgarh
2. "Shri Sanjit Kumar Minz, Deputy
All premises belonging to, or taken on lease
General Manager (Human
by the National Thermal Power Corporation
Resources) National Thermal Power
Limited (NTPC Limited) and under the
Corporation Limited (NTPC Limited)
administrative control of its Dulanga Coal
at Dulanga Coal Mining Project,
Mining Project, Plot No.681/26, Mission
District - Sundergarh, Odisha.
Road, District - Sundergarh- 770001,Odisha."
[F. No. 8/6/1992-TH.-I-Pt. XIX]
G. SAI PRASAD, Jt. Secy.
Note : The principal notification was published vide number S. O. 481 dated the 3rd February, 2011.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2775
ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1074-—lkoZtfud LFky (vukf/Ñr vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1970 dk 40) dh /kjk&3 }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fuEufyf[kr rkfydk ds dkye (1) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/fu;e ds
iz;kstu gq, Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh ds lerqY; in ij lEink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS tks mDr rkfydk ds dkye(2) esa
laxr izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr lkoZtfud LFkyksa dh Jsf.k;ksa ds laca/ esa vius lacaf/r vf/dkj {ks=k dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj mDr vf/fu;e
ds }kjk vFkok mlds varxZr lEink vf/dkfj;ksa dks iznÙk dh xbZ 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vkSj dÙkZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djsaxs vFkkZr~ %—
rkfydk
vf/dkjh dk uke o inuke
lkoZtfud ifjlj dh Js.kh ,oa vf/dkj {ks=k dh LFkkuh; lhek
(1)
(2)
1- ¶Jh ,MksYiQ dsjdsV~Vk] mi egkizca/d (ekuo lalk/u)]
us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)
us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)]
ds LokfeRo okys vFkok mlls lacaf/r vFkok mlds }kjk iV~Vs ij
idjh cjokMhg dks;yk [kuu ifj;kstuk] cjdkxkao] gtkjhckx]
fy, x, vkSj mldh idjh cjokMhg dks;yk [kuu cjdkxkao
>kj[k.M
gtkjhckx] >kj[k.M ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds vUrxZr vkus
okys lHkh LFky A¸
¹iQk- la- 8@6@1992&FkeZy&I, ikVZ&17]
th- lkbZ izlkn] la;qDr lfpo
fVIIk.kh % eq[; vf/lwpuk fnukad 7 vxLr] 2009 ds dk-vk 2260 ds }kjk Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ A
New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014
S.O. 1074.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises, (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the
following table, being officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government of India, to be Estate Officer for
the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer
by or under the said Act, within the local limits of the jurisdiction in respect of the Public premises specified in column (2)
of the said Table, namely :—
TABLE
Name and designation of officer
Categories of public premises and local limits of
jurisdiction
(1 )
(2)
1. "Shri Adolf Kerketta, Deputy General
All premises belonging to or taken on lease
Manager (Human Resources) officer of
by the National Thermal Power Corporation
the National Thermal Power Corporation
Limited (NTPC Limited) and under the
Limited (NTPC Limited) Pakri Barwadih
administrative control of its Pakri Barwadih Coal
Coal Mining Project, Barkagaon, Hazaribagh,
Mining Project, Barkagaon, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand” .
Jharkhand.
[F. No. 8/6/1992-TH.I-Pt. XVII]
G. SAI PRASAD, Jt. Secy.
Note : The principal notification was publsihed in the Gazette of India vide number S. O. 2260 dated 7th August, 2009.
2776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1075-— dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962
(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu vka/zk izns'k jkT; ds Hkhrj xsy (bf.M;k) fyfeVsM dh
lHkh ikbiykbuksa ds fy;s l{ke vf/dkjh ds dk;ks± dk fuoZgu djus ds fy;s Jh ,- ohjk jk?koSÕ;k] Lis'ky fM- dyDVj] vka/z izns'k ljdkj
dks fnukad 24&02&2014 ls izkf/Ñr djrh gS] igys izkf/Ñr l{ke izkf/dkjh Jherh ,u- lqxquk dqekjh dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A
¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@19@14&th-ih-&IIº
,l-ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2014
S.O. 1075.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of
User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Central Government hereby authorizes Shri A. Veera Ragavaiah, Special Dy. Collector
(LA), Government of Andhra Pradesh to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India)
Limited, under the said Act, within the territory of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 24-02-2014 Earlier notified Competent Authority
Smt. N. Suguna Kumari stands de-notified.
[F. No. L-14014/19/14-G.P.-II]
S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.
dks;yk ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1076-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds
i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 7 dh mi /kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh] Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad
dk-vk- 2096] rkjh[k 12 twu] 2012 dks ftls Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti=k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 23 twu] 2012 esa izdkf'kr dh
xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V ,slh Hkwfe esa ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkjksa ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh
Fkh A
vkSj l{ke izkf/dkjh us mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 8 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS A
vkSj dsanzh; ljdkj dks iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus vkSj >kj[k.M ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 605-11 gsDVs;j ;k 1495-25 ,dM+ eki okyh Hkwfe v£tr dh tkuh pkfg, _
vr%] vc] dsanzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 9 dh mi /kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS
fd vuqlwph esa ;Fkk o£.kr 605-11 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 1495-25 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj v£tr
fd;s tkrs gSa A
bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,uVhihlh@lh,e@lsD'ku IV@lh-ch-,-@09@ih-ch-@053] rkjh[k 9 fnlEcj]
2013 dk fujh{k.k mik;qDr] gtkjhckx (>kj[k.M jkT;) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001
ds dk;kZy; esa ;k mi egkizca/d ([kuu)] idjh cjokMhg dksy ekb¯ux ifj;kstuk] ,uVhihlh fyfeVsM] mTtoy dkEiysDl] ixfey jksM]
gtkjhckx] >kj[k.M&825301 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k vij egk izca/d (dks;yk [kuu)] dksy ekb¯ux vkSj Ý;qy VªkaliksZVs'ku fMohtu] ,uVhihlh
fyfeVsM] bZ-vks-lh-] ,usDl] dejk la[;k 118] IykWV la[;k ,8&,] lsDVj&24] uks,Mk] mÙkj izns'k&201301 ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk
gS A
vuqlwph
idjh cjokMhg dksy ekb¯ux CykWd iQst&V
>kj[kaM jkT; ds ftyk gtkjhckx esa ukFkZ djuiqjk dksyiQhYM~l
(js[kkad la[;k ,uVhihlh@lh-,e-@lsD'ku IV@lh-ch-,@09@ih-ch-@053] rkjh[k 9 fnlEcj] 2013)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2777
(d) jktLo Hkwfe %
Øe
xkao dk uke
Fkkuk ua-
Fkkuk
ftyk
{ks=kiQy (yxHkx)
fVIi.kh
la-
gsDVs;j
,dM+
1
csyrq
32
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
5-46
13-50
Hkkx
2
daMkcsj
33
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
35-09
86-70
Hkkx
3
cfj;krw
42
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
12-82
31-68
Hkkx
4
tcjk
43
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
12-36
30-54
Hkkx
5
clfj;k
44
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
13-71
33-88
Hkkx
6
ukokMhg
45
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
3-53
8-70
Hkkx
7
fljek
46
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
21-55
53-25
Hkkx
8
idjh cjokMhg
56
cM+dkxk¡o
gtkjhckx
194-09
479-60
Hkkx
dqy %
298-61
737-85
([k) ou Hkwfe (vf/lwfpr@vuf/lwfpr@taxy >kM+h) %
Øe
xkao dk uke
Fkkuk ua-
Fkkuk
ftyk
{ks=kiQy (yxHkx)
fVIi.kh
la-
gsDVs;j
,dM+
1
csyrq
32
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
6-07
15-00
Hkkx
2
daMkcsj
33
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
17-26
42-66
Hkkx
3
cfj;krw
42
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
202-28
499-83
Hkkx
4
tcjk
43
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
3-68
9-10
Hkkx
5
clfj;k
44
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
30-98
76-57
Hkkx
6
ukokMhgw
45
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
20-23
50-00
Hkkx
7
fljek
46
dsjsMkjh
gtkjhckx
21-48
53-07
Hkkx
8
idjh cjokMhg
56
cM+dkxk¡o
gtkjhckx
4-52
11-17
Hkkx
dqy %
306-50
757-40
lkjka'k %
(d)
dqy jktLo Hkwfe % 298-61 gsDVsj = 737-85 ,dM+
([k)
dqy ou Hkwfe % 306-50 gsDVsj = 757-40 ,dM+
(x)
ldy ;ksx (d + [k) % 605-11 gsDVsj = 1495-25 ,dM+
v£tr fd, tkus okys jktLo IykWVksa dh lwph %
1-
xzke csyrq %—60 Hkkx] 63] 64 Hkkx] 65 ls 67] 68 Hkkx] 69 Hkkx] 85] 86] 88 ls 105] 106 Hkkx] 107 Hkkx] 108] 109]
110 Hkkx] 111] 114 Hkkx] 119 Hkkx] 120 Hkkx] 121 Hkkx] 122] 123] 124 Hkkx-
2-
xzke daMkcsj %—185 Hkkx] 188 ls 196] 198 ls 211] 213 ls 239] 240 Hkkx] 241 ls 254] 255ih] 448 Hkkx] 450 Hkkx] 451]
452 Hkkx] 453 Hkkx] 454 Hkkx] 455 Hkkx] 456 ls 467] 468 Hkkx] 471 Hkkx] 472 Hkkx] 473 ls 483] 484 Hkkx] 485 ls 492]
494 ls 512] 513 Hkkx] 514 515 Hkkx] 519 Hkkx] 520 Hkkx] 521 Hkkx] 522 ls 526] 528 ls 544] 546 ls 624] 626 ls 633]
635 ls 639] 641 ls 680-
2778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3-
xzke cfj;krw %—5 ls 20] 22 ls 49] 51 ls 62] 1658] 1685] 1687 ls 1693-
4-
xzke tcjk %—1] 3 ls 97-
5-
xzke clfj;k %—6 Hkkx] 13 Hkkx] 14 ls 22] 23 Hkkx] 24 Hkkx] 25 Hkkx] 26 Hkkx] 28 ls 31] 33-
6-
xzke ukokMhg %—473 Hkkx] 481 Hkkx] 482] 483 Hkkx] 484 Hkkx] 485 Hkkx] 486 Hkkx] 487 488 Hkkx] 489] 490 Hkkx] 491 Hkkx]
492 Hkkx] 493 Hkkx] 494 Hkkx] 495 Hkkx] 496 Hkkx] 497] 498 Hkkx] 499 Hkkx] 500] 501 Hkkx] 502 ls 504-
7-
xzke fljek %—113 Hkkx] 137 Hkkx] 141 Hkkx] 142] 145 Hkkx] 146 Hkkx] 147] 148 Hkkx] 149 Hkkx] 150 Hkkx] 151 Hkkx] 152 Hkkx]
157 Hkkx] 158 ls 194] 196 ls 239] 241] 242] 243 Hkkx] 244] 246] 248 ls 290] 292 ls 295-
8-
xzke idjh cjokMhg %—1041 ls 1432] 1442 ls 1446] 1448 ls 1718] 1741 ls 1743] 1918 ls 1933] 1935 ls 1950] 1952 ls
2436] 2438 ls 2463] 2499] 2516] 2518-
v£tr fd, tkus okys ou Hkwfe IykWVksa dh lwph %
1- xzke csyrq %—62 Hkkx] 84 Hkkx] 87] 143 Hkkx-
2- xzke daMkcsj %—197 Hkkx] 212] 493] 527] 545] 625] 634] 640-
3- xzke cfj;krw %—1 ls 4] 21] 50] 63 Hkkx] 232 Hkx] 1686-
4- xzke tcjk %—2-
5- xzke clfj;k %—12 Hkkx] 27 Hkkx] 32] 34-
6- xzke ukokMhg %—422 Hkkx] 505 Hkkx-
7- xzke fljek%—30 Hkkx] 144 Hkkx] 195] 240] 245] 247] 291] 296-
8- xzke idjh cjokMhg %—1447] 2464-
/kjk 9(1) ds iQst&V ds v/hu vf/lwfpr fd;s tkus okys {ks=k dk lhek o.kZu %
^^Hkkx&d** dk lhek o.kZu %
1-
js[kk d&d1 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke dUMkcsj ds IykV la[;k 454 esa mÙkjh&if'peh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS
vkSj tks xzke dUMkcsj ds iwohZ fdukjs dh vksj IykWV la[;k 454] 455] 454] 453] 452] 448] 450] 467] 468] 471] 472] 255]
240] 188] 189] 185] 197] 199] 200 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke dUMkcsj ds fcUnq ^^d 1** ij lekIr gksrh gS A
2-
js[kk d1&d2 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d1** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke dUMkcsj ds IykWV ua- 200 ds mÙkjh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj xzke ukokMhg ds IykWV la[;k 422 vkSj 505 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke ukokMhg ds fcUnq ^^d2** ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
3-
js[kk d2&d3 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d2** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ukokMhg ds mÙkjh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks xzke ukokMhg ds
mÙkj&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 505 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke ukokMhg ds fcUnq ^^d3** ij lekIr gksrh gS A
4-
js[kk d3&d4 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d3** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ukokMhg ds mÙkjh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks xzke ukokMhg ds iwoZ
dh vksj IykWV la[;k 505] 473 481] 483] 484] 485] 486] 487] 488] 490] 491] 492] 493] 494] 495] 496] 498] 499] 501
ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke ukokMhg ds fcUnq ^^d4** ij lekIr gksrh gS A
5-
js[kk d4&d5 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d4** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ukokMhg mÙkj&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks iwoZ dh vksj xzke
clfj;k ds IykWV la[;k 13] 23] 12] 24] 25 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke clfj;k ds fcUnq ^^d5** ij lekIr gksrh gS A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2779
6-
js[kk d5&d6 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d5** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke cljh;k ds mÙkj fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks mÙkj&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV
la[;k 25] 27] 6 vkSj 27 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke cljh;k ds fcUnq ^^d6** ij lekIr gksrh gS A
7-
js[kk d6&d7 %—js[kk fcUnq ^^d6** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke cljh;k ds mÙkjh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks iwoZ dh vksj IykWV
la[;k 27 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ^^d7** ij lekIr gksrh gS A
8-
xzke d7&d8 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d7** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke cljh;k ds mÙkjh&iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks xzke fljek ds iwoZ
dh vksj IykWV la[;k 30] 157] 159] 152] 151] 145] 146 vkSj 148 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke fljek ds fcUnq ¶d8¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
9-
js[kk d8&d9 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d8¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke fljek ds mÙkj fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks xkao fljek ds
mÙkj&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 148] 149] 150] 141] 137 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d9¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
10-
js[kk d9&d10 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d9¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke fljek ds mÙkj fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k
137] 113] 142] 144] 243 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d10¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
11-
js[kk d 10&d 11 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d10¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke fljek ds mÙkj fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks nf{k.k&iwoZ dh vksj
IykWV la[;k 243 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d11¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
12-
js[kk d 11&d 12 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d11¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke fljek ds iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks nf{k.k&if'pe dh
vksj IykWV la[;k 243] 247] 252] 253] 254] 255] 256] 257] 258] 259] 286] 295] 296 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq
¶d12¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
13-
js[kk d12&d13 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 12¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke fljek ds nf{k.k&iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks ckfj;krq ds
nf{k.k dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1686 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d13¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
14-
js[kk d13 d14 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 13¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds mÙkj&iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks nf{k.k&iwoZ
dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1693 vkSj 1692 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d14¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
15-
js[kk d14 d15 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 14¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds mÙkj&iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks nf{k.k dh
vksj IykWV la[;k 1692] 1690] 1689] 1688 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d15¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
16-
js[kk d15 d 16 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 15¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks nf{k.k dh vksj
IykWV la[;k 1686 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d16¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
17-
js[kk d16 d 17 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 16¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
nf{k.k&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1686 vkSj 1685 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d17¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
18-
js[kk d17&d18 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 17¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&iwohZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks mÙkj dh vksj
IykWV la[;k 1685 vkSj 1658 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d18¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
19-
js[kk d18&d19 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 18¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
mÙkj&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1658 vkSj 1685 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d19¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
20-
js[kk d19&d20 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 19¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
mÙkj&if'pe dh vksj ckfj;krq xkao ds IykWV la[;k 232 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d20¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
21-
js[kk d20&d21 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 20¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks mÙkj&if'pe dh
vksj IykWV la[;k 63 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d21¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
22-
js[kk d21 d 22 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 21¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
mÙkj&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 63 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d22¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
2780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23-
js[kk d22 d23 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 22¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
mÙkj&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 58] 57] 56] 50] 55] 54] 53] 52 vkSj 51 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d23¸ ij lekIr
gksrh gS A
24-
js[kk d23 d 24 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 23¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke tcjk ds if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks mÙkj&if'pe dh
vksj ckfj;krq xkao ds IykWV la- 51 vkSj 50 rFkk tcjk xkao ds IykWV la- 49] 50] 51 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d24¸ ij
lekIr gksrh gS A
25-
js[kk d24 d 25 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 24¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke ckfj;krq ds nf{k.k&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks tcjk xkao
ds mÙkj dh vksj IykWV la- 51 ls xqtjrh gqbZ tcjk xkao ds fcUnq ¶d25¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
26-
js[kk d25 d 26 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 25¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke tcjk ds nf{k.k&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks if'pe dh
vksj tcjk xkao ds IykWV la- 51 ls xqtjrh gqbZ tcjk xkao ds fcUnq ¶d26¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
27-
js[kk d26&d27 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 26¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke tcjk ds if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks if'pe dh vksj
daMkcsj xkao ds IykWV la- 680 vkSj 484 rFkk csyrw xkao ds IykWV la- 60] vkSj 62 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke csyrq ds fcUnq ¶d27¸ ij
lekIr gksrh gS A
28-
js[kk d27&d28 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 27¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke csyrq ds mÙkj&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks if'pe dh vksj
xzke csyrw ds IykWV la- 62] 63] 64] 68] 69 vkSj 60 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d28¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
29-
js[kk d28&d29 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 28¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke csyrw ds if'peh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks mÙkj&if'pe
dh vksj xzke daMkcsj ds IykWV la- 484] 519] 520] 521] 513] 515 vkSj 484 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke csyrw ds fcUnq ¶d29¸ ij lekIr
gksrh gS A
30-
js[kk d29&d30 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 29¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke xzke daMkcsj ds if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
mÙkj&if'pe dh vksj xzke csyrw ds IykWV la- 60] 124] 84] 121] 120] 119] 105] 106] 107] 114] 110 143 vkSj 60 ls xqtjrh
gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶d30¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
31-
js[kk d30 d%—js[kk fcUnq ¶d 30¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke xzke csyrw ds mÙkj fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks mÙkj&if'pe dh
vksj xzke csyrw ds IykWV la- 484] 454] 456 vkSj 454 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke daMkcsj ds fcUnq ¶d¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
¶Hkkx&[k¸ dk lhek o.kZu %
1-
js[kk [k&[k1 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'peh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1950] 1934] 1933 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k1¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
2-
js[kk [k1&[k2 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k1¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'peh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1933] 1923] 1918 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k2¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
3-
js[kk [k2&[k3 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k2¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'peh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1918] 1919] 1920 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k3¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
4-
js[kk [k3&[k4 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k3¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.k dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1920 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k4¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
5-
js[kk [k4&[k5 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k4¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1920] 1921] 1922] 1937 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k5¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2781
6-
js[kk [k5&[k6 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k5¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds mÙkj dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1937] 1939] 1940] 1943] 1944] 1945] 1946] 1947] 1948] 1949 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao
ds fcUnq ¶[k6¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
7-
js[kk [k6&[k7 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k6¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds mÙkj dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1949] 1950 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k7¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
8-
js[kk [k7&[k8 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k 7¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1950] 1964] 1963] 1962 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k8¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
9-
js[kk [k8&[k9 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k 8¸ xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ
dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1962] 1960] 1961] 1952 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 9¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
10-
js[kk [k9&[k10 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k9¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1952] 1743 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 10¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
11-
js[kk [k10&[k11 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k10¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1743] 1742] 1741] 2125 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 11¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
12-
js[kk [k11&[k12 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k11¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2125] 2127] 2130 1718] 1154 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 12¸ ij lekIr
gksrh gS
13-
js[kk [k12&[k13 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k12¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1154] 1137] 1136] 1134] 1133] 1132 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 13¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
14-
js[kk [k13&[k14 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k13¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkj fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj blh xkao ds
nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1132 vkSj 1128 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 14¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
15-
js[kk [k14&[k15 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k14¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds mÙkjh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1128] 1041 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 15¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
16-
js[kk [k15&[k16 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k15¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1041 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 16¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
17-
js[kk [k16&[k17 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k16¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao ds
nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1041] 1432 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 17¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
18-
js[kk [k17&[k18 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k17¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1432] 1449 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 18¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
19-
js[kk [k18&[k19 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k18¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds nf{k.kh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1449 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 19¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
20-
js[kk [k19&[k20 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k19¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1449 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 20¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
2782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21-
js[kk [k20&[k21 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k20¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1449 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 21¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
22-
js[kk [k21&[k22 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k21¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1449 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 22¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
23-
js[kk [k22&[k23 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k22¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds nf{k.kh dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1449 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 23¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
24-
js[kk [k23&[k24 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k23¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1449] 2464 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶ch 24¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
25-
js[kk [k24&[k25 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k24¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2464 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶ch 25¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
26-
js[kk [k25&[k26 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k25¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&iwoZ fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh
xkao ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2464] 2438] 2436] 2379 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 26¸ ij lekIr
gksrh gS A
27-
js[kk [k26&[k27 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k26¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds nf{k.kh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2379] 2375] 2468 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 27¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
28-
js[kk [k27&[k28 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k27¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2468] 2374] 2363 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 28¸ ij lekIr
gksrh gS A
29-
js[kk [k28&[k29 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k28¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2363] 2362 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 29¸ ij lekIr
gksrh gS A
30-
js[kk [k29&[k30 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k29¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2362] 2361] 2359] 2358] 2325] 2324 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 30¸ ij
lekIr gksrh gS A
31-
js[kk [k30&[k31 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k30¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2324] 2323] 2276] 2275] 2274] 2273 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 31¸ ij
lekIr gksrh gS A
32-
js[kk [k31&[k32 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k31¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2273] 2274] ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 32¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
33-
js[kk [k32&[k33 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k32¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2274] 2270] 2269 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 33¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS
A
34-
js[kk [k33&[k34 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k33¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2269] 2268 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 34¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
35-
js[kk [k34&[k35 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k34¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2268] 2251] 2230 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 35¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2783
36-
js[kk [k35&[k36 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k35¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2230] 1718] 2216] 2033] 2032] 2028 2029 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq
¶[k 36¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
37-
js[kk [k36&[k37 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k36¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds nf{k.k&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2029] 2025] 2023] 2022] 2021] 2020 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq
¶[k37¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
38-
js[kk [k37&[k38 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k37¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 2020] 2019] 1950 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 38¸ ij lekIr gksrh
gS A
39-
js[kk [k38&[k39 %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k38¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds nf{k.kh&if'pe fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks
blh xkao ds mÙkjh&iwoZ dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1950 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k 39¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
40-
js[kk [k39&[k %—js[kk fcUnq ¶[k39¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS tks xzke idjh cjokMhg ds if'peh fdukjs ij fLFkr gS vkSj tks blh xkao
ds mÙkjh&if'pe dh vksj IykWV la[;k 1950 ls xqtjrh gqbZ blh xkao ds fcUnq ¶[k¸ ij lekIr gksrh gS A
[iQk- la- 43015@02@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1@ftYn&2]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014
S.O. 1076.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2096,
dated the 12th June, 2012 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas, (Acquisition and Develop-
ment) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section -
3, sub- section (ii), dated the 23rd June, 2012 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands with
all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And, whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the Central
Government;
And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government
of Jharkhand, is satisfied that the lands measuring 605.11 hectares or 1495.25 acres as described in the Schedule appended
hereto, should be acquired;
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the lands measuring 605.11 hectares (approximately) or 1495.25 acres (approximately) and
all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired;
The plan bearing number NTPC/CM/SEC IV/CBA/09/PB/053, dated the 09th December, 2013 of the area covered
by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag (Jharkhand State) or in the Office
of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or in the Office of the Deputy General Manager (Mining),
Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project, NTPC Limited, Ujjwal Complex, Pugmil Road, Hazaribag-825301 (Jharkhand) or in the
Office of the Additional General Manager (Coal Mining), Coal Mining and Fuel Transportation Division, NTPC Limited,
EOC Annex, Room No. 118, Plot No. A8-A, Sector 24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.
2784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
PAKRI BARWADIH COAL MINING BLOCK PHASE-V
NORTH KARANPURA COALFIELDS IN HAZARIBAGH
DISTRICT JHARKHAND STATE
( Plan bearing number NTPC/CM/SEC IV/CBA/09/PB/053, dated the 09th December, 2013)
( A ) REVENUE LAND :
SI
Village
Thana
Thana
District
Area (approximately)
Remark
No.
No.
Hectare
Acre
1
Beltu
32
Keredari
Hazaribagh
5.46
13.50
Part
2
Kandaber
33
Keredari
Hazaribagh
35.09
86.70
Part
3
Bariatu
42
Keredari
Hazaribagh
12.82
31.68
Part
4
Jabra
43
Keredari
Hazaribagh
12.36
30.54
Part
5
Basaria
44
Keredari
Hazaribagh
13.71
33.88
Part
6
Nawadih
45
Keredari
Hazaribagh
3.53
8.70
Part
7
Sirma
46
Keredari
Hazaribagh
21.55
53.25
Part
8
Pakri Barwadih
56
Barkaqaon
Hazaribagh
194.09
479.60
Part
Total :
298.61
737.85
(B) FOREST LAND (Notified/Un-Notified/Jungle - Jhadi):
SI
Village
Thana
Thana
District
Area (approximately)
Remark
No.
No.
Hectare
Acre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1
Beltu
32
Keredari
Hazaribagh
6.07
15.00
Part
2
Kandaber
33
Keredari
Hazaribagh
17.26
42.66
Part
3
Bariatu
42
Keredari
Hazaribagh
202.28
499.83
Part
4
Jabra
43
Keredari
Hazaribagh
3.68
9.10
Part
5
Basaria
44
Keredari
Hazaribagh
30.98
76.57
Part
6
Nawadih
45
Keredari
Hazaribagh
20.23
50.00
Part
7
Sirma
46
Keredari
Hazaribagh
21.48
53.07
Part
8
Pakri Barwadih
56
Barkagaon
Hazaribagh
4.52
11.17
Part
Total
306.50
757.40
SUMMARY :
A). TOTAL REVENUE LAND :
298.61 hectares
= 737.85 acres
B). TOTAL FOREST LAND
306.50 hectares
= 757.40 acres
GRAND TOTAL (A+B)
605.11 hectares
= 1495.25 acres
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2785
LIST OF REVENUE PLOTS TO BE ACQUIRED:
1. Village Beltu : - 60P , 63 , 64P , 65 to 67 , 68P , 69P , 85 , 86 , 88 to 105 , 106P, 107P, 108,109, 110P, 111 ,114P, 119P, 120P,
121P, 122,123 ,124P.
2. Village Kandaber : -185P, 188 to 196, 198 to 211, 213 to 239, 240P, 241 to 254, 255P, 448P, 450P, 451, 452P, 453P, 454P,
455P, 456 to 467, 468P, 471 P, 472P, 473 to 483, 484P, 485 to 492, 494 to 512, 513P, 514, 515P, 519P, 520P, 521 P, 522 to
526, 528 to 544 , 546 to 624, 626 to 633, 635 to 639, 641 to 680.
3. Village Bariatu :- 5 to 20, 22 to 49, 51 to 62, 1658, 1685, 1687 to 1693.
4. Village Jabra :- 1 , 3 to 97 .
5. Village Basaria:- 6P, 13P, 14 to 22, 23P, 24P, 25P, 26, 28 to 31, 33.
6. Village Nawadih: - 473P, 481 P, 482, 483P, 484P, 485, 486P, 487P, 488P, 489, 490P, 491 P, 492P, 493P,
494P, 495P, 496P, 497, 498P, 499P, 500, 501 P, 502 to 504.
7. Village Sirma :- 113P, 137P, 141P, 142, 145P, 146P, 147, 148P, • 149P, 150P, 151P, 152P, 157P, 158 to 194, 196 to 239, 241,
242, 243P, 244, 246, 248 to 290, 292 to 295.
8. Village Pakri Barwadih :- 1041 to 1432, 1442 to 1446, 1448 to 1718, 1741 to 1743, 1918 to 1933, 1935 to 1950 ,1952 to 2436,
2438 to 2463, 2499, 2516 , 2518.
LIST OF FOREST PLOTS TO BE ACQUIRED :
1. Village Beltu: - 62P , 84P , 87 , 143P
2. Village Kandaber: - 197P, 212, 493, 527, 545, 625, 634, 640
3. Village Bariatu : - 1 to 4,21 , 50, 63P , 232P, 1686.
4. Village Jabra :- 2 .
5. Village Basaria:- 12P, 27P , 32 , 34.
6. Village Nawadih : - 422P, 505P.
7. Village Sirma:- 30P, 144P , 195, 240, 245, 247, 291, 296.
8. Village Pakri Barwadih:- 1447, 2464.
Boundary Description of the area to be notified under section 9 (1 ) for Phase - V :
Boundary Description for "Part -A" :
(1) Line A-A 1: The line starts at point 'A' located on North-West corner in plot no. 454 of village Kandaber which moves
towards East corner of the village Kandaber passing through plot nos. 454, 455, 454, 453, 452, 448, 450, 467, 468, 471,
472, 255, 240, 188, 189, 185, 197, 199, 200 and ends at point 'A1'of the village Kandaber.
(2) Line A 1-A2: The line starts at point 'A l' located on North corner at plot no. 200 of village Kandaber which moves
towards North-East of the village Nawadih passing through plot nos. 422 and 505 and ends at point 'A2'of the
village Nawadih.
(3) Line A2-A3: The line starts at point 'A2' located on North corner of village Nawadih which moves towards North
East of the village Nawadih passing through plot no. 505 and ends at point 'A3'of the village Nawadih.
(4) Line A3-A4: The line starts at point 'A3' located on North corner of village Nawadih which moves towards East of
the village Nawadih passing through plot nos. 505, 473, 481, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495,
496, 498, 499, 501 and ends at point 'A4' of the village Nawadih.
(5) Line A4-A5: The line starts at point 'A4' located on North-East corner of village Nawadih which moves towards East
of the village Basaria passing through plot nos. 13, 23, 12, 24, 25 and ends at point 'A5'of the village Basaria.
(6) Line A5-A6: The line starts at point 'A5' located on North corner of village Basaria which moves towards North East
of the village Basaria passing through plot nos. 25,27, 6 and 27 and ends at point 'A6'of the village Basaria.
(7) Line A6-A7: The line starts at point 'A6' located on North corner of village Basaria passing towards East of the
village Basaria passing through plot no. 27 and ends at point 'A7' of the village Basaria.
(8) Line A7 -A8: The line starts at point 'A7' located on North-East corner of village Basaria which moves towards
North-East of the village Sirma passing through plot nos. 30,157,159,152,151,145,146 and 148 and ends at point 'A8'
of the village Sirma.
(9) Line A8-A9: The line starts at point 'A8' located on North corner of village Sirma which moves towards
North-West of the village Sirma passing through plot nos. 148, 149, 150, 141, 137 and ends at point 'A9' of the village
Sirma.
2786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(10) Line A9-A 10: The line starts at point 'A9' located on North corner of village Sirma which moves towards East of the
village Sirma passing through plot nos. 137, 113, 142, 144,243 and ends at point 'A10' of the village Sirma.
(11) Line A10-A 11: The line starts at point 'A 10' located on North corner of village Sirma which moves towards South-
East of the village Sirma passing through ' plot no. 243 and ends at point 'A 11' of the village Sirma.
(12) Line A11-A12: The line starts at point 'A11' located on East corner of village Sirma which moves towards South-
West of the village Sirma passing through plot nos. 243, 247, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 286, 295, 296 and
ends at point 'A 12'of the village Sirma.
(13) Line A 12-A 13: The line starts at point 'A 12' located on South-East corner of village Sirma which moves towards
South of the village Bariatu passing through plot no. 1686 and ends at point 'A 13'of the village Bariatu.
(14) Line A13-A14: The line starts at point 'A13' located on North-East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
South-East of the village Bariatu passing through plot nos. 1693 and 1692 and ends at point 'A14'of the village
Bariatu.
(15) Line A14-A15: The line starts at point 'A14' located on North-East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
South of the village Bariatu passing through plot nos. 1692, 1691, 1690, 1689, 1688 and ends at point 'A15' of the
village Bariatu.
(16) Line A15-A16: The line starts at point 'A15' located on East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South of
the village Bariatu passing through plot no. 1686 and ends at point 'A16'of the village Bariatu.
(17) Line A16-A17: The line starts at point 'A16' located on South-East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
South-West of the village Bariatu passing through plot nos. 1686 and 1685 and ends at point 'A 17'of the village
Bariatu.
(18) Line A17-A18: The line starts at point 'A17' located on South-East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
North of the village Bariatu passing through plot nos. 1685 and 1658 and ends at point 'A 18 of the village Bariatu.
(19) Line A 18-A 19: The line starts at point 'A 18' located on South-East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
North-West of the village Bariatu passing through plot nos. 1658 and 1685 and ends at point 'A 19' of the village
Bariatu.
(20) Line A 19-A20: The line starts at point 'A 19' located on South-East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
North-West of village Bariatu passing through plot no. 232 and ends at point 'A20'of village Bariatu.
(21) Line A20-A21: The line starts at point 'A20' located on South corner of village Bariatu which moves towards North-
West of the village Bariatu passing through plot no. 63 and ends at point 'A21' of the village Bariatu.
(22) Line A21-A22: The line starts at point 'A21' located on South-West corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
North-West passing through plot no. 63 and ends at point 'A22' of the village Bariatu.
(23) Line A22-A23: The line starts at point 'A22' located on South-West corner of village Bariatu which moves towards
North-West of the village Bariatu passing through plot nos. 58, 57, 56, 50, 55, 54, 53, 52 and 51 and ends at point
'A23'of the village Bariatu. - 5 .
(24) Line A23-A24: The line starts at point 'A23' located on West corner of village Bariatu which moves towards North-
West passing through plot no. 51 and 50 of village Bariatu and plot nos. 49, 50 and 51 of village Jhabra and ends at
point 'A24' of the village Jhabra. \
(25) Line A24-A25: The line starts at point 'A24' starting at the South-East side of village Jhabra and passing in North
direction through village Jhabra passing through plot no. 51 and ends at point 'A25' of village Jhabra.
(26) Line A25-A26: The line starts at point 'A25' located on South-East corner of village Jhabra which moves towards
West of village Jhabra passing through plot no. 51 and ends at point 'A26'of village Jhabra.
(27) Line A26-A27: The line starts at point 'A26' located on West corner of village Jhabra which moves towards West
passing through plot nos. 680 and 484 of village Kandaber and plot no. 60 and 62 of village Beltu and ends at point
'A27'of the village Beltu.
(28) Line A27 -A28: The line starts at point 'A27' located on North-East corner of village Beltu which moves towards
North-West of the village Beltu passing through plot nos. 62, 63, 64, 68, 69 and 60 and ends at point 'A28'of the
village Beltu.
(29) Line A28-A29: The line starts at point 'A28' located on West corner of village Beltu which moves towards North-
West passing through plot nos. 484, 519, 520, 521, 513, 515 and 484 of village Kandaber and ends at point 'A29'of the
village Beltu.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2787
(30) Line A29-A30: The line starts at point 'A29' located on West corner of village Kandaber which moves towards
North-West passing through plot nos. 60, 124,84,121,120,119,105,106,107,114,110,143 and 60 of the village Beltu and
ends at point 'A30' of the village Beltu.
(31) Line A30-A: The line starts at point 'A30' located on North corner of village Beltu which moves towards North-West
passing through plot nos. 484, 454, 456 and 454 and ends at point 'A' of the village Kandaber.
Boundary Description for "Part -B" :
(1) Line B-B 1: The line starts at point 'B' located on North-West of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards East
corner of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1950, 1934, 1933 and ends at point 'B1'of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(2) Line B 1-B2: The line starts at point 'B l' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1933, 1923, 1918 and ends at point 'B2'of
the village Pakri Barwadih.
(3) Line B2-B3: The line starts at point 'B2' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1918, 1919, 1920 and ends at point 'B3'of
the village Pakri Barwadih.
(4) Line B3-B4: The line starts at point 'B3' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 1920 and ends at point 'B4' of the village Pakri
Barwadih.
(5) Line B4-B5: The line starts at point '84' located on North-West corner of village Pakri 8arwadih which moves towards
South-East village Pakri Barwadih through plot nos. 1920, 1921, 1922, 1937 and ends at point 'B5'of the village Pakri
Barwadih.
(6) Line B5-B6: The 'line starts at point 'B5' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1937, 1939, 1940, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947,
1948,1949 and ends at point 'B6' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(7) Line B6-B7: The line starts at point 'B6' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih passingtowards
North of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1949, 1950 and ends at point 'B7'of the village Pakri
Barwadih.
(8) Line B7-B8: The line starts at point 'B7' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1950, 1964, 1963, 1962 and ends at point
'B8' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(9) Line B8-B9: The line starts at point 'B8' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1962, 1960, 1961, 1952 and ends at point
'B9' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(10) Line B9-B10: The line starts at point ', B9' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing throuqh plot nos. 1952, 1743 and ends at point 'B10' of the
village Pakri Barwadih.
(11) Line B10-B11: The line starts at point 'B10' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 1743, 1742, 1741, 2125 and ends at point
'B11' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(12) Line 811-B12: The line starts at point 'B11' located on North-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2125, 2127, 2130, 1718, 1154 and ends at
point 'B12' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(13) Line B12-B13: The line starts at point 'B12' located on North corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1154, 1137, 1136, 1134, 1133, 1132 and ends at point 'B13'
of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(14) Line B13-B14: The line starts at point 'B13' located on North corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
South-East of the village Pakri Sarwadih passing through plot nos. 1132 and 1128 and ends at point
'B 14' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(15) Line B14-B15: The line starts at point 'B14' located on North-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-East of the village Pakri 8arwadih passing through plot nos. 1128, 1041 and ends at point
'B 15' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(16) Line B15-B16: The line starts at point 'B15' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 1041 and ends at point 'B16' of the village Pakri
Barwadih.
2788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(17) Line B16-B17: The line starts at point 'B16' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1041, 1432 and ends at point 'B17' of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(18) Line B17-B18: The line starts at point 'B17' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
South-East of the village Pakri Sarwadih passing through plot no. 1432, 1449 and ends at point 'B18'of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(19) Line B18-B19: The line starts at point '818' located on East corner of village Pakri 8arwadih which moves towards
South-West of the village Pakri Sarwadih passing through plot no. 1449 and ends at point 'B19'of the village Pakri
Barwadih.
(20) Line B19-B20: The line starts at point 'B19' located on South-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-West of village Pakri Sarwadih passing through plot no. 1449 and ends at point 'B20' of village Pakri
Barwadih.
(21) Line B20-B21: The line starts at point 'B20' located on South-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 1449 and ends at point 'B21 'of the
village Pakri Barwadih.
(22) Line B21-B22: The line starts at point 'B21' located on South-East corner of village Pakri 8arwadih which moves
towards North-West of the village Pakri 8arwadih passing through plot no. 1449 and ends at point 'B22' of the
village Pakri Barwadih.
(23) Line B22-B23: The line starts at point 'B22' located on South-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
South of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 1449 and ends at point 'B23' of the village Pakri
Barwadih.
(24) Line B23-B24: The line starts at point 'B23' located on South-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through nos. 1449, 2464 and ends at point 'B24' of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(25) Line B24-B25: The line starts at point 'B24' located at the South-East side of village Pakri Barwadih and passing in
North-East direction through village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 2464 and ends at point 'B25' of village
Pakri Barwadih.
(26) Line B25-B26: The line starts at point 'B25' located on South-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-West of village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2464, 2438, 2436, 2379 and ends at point
'B26' of village Pakri Barwadih.
(27) Line B26-B27: The line starts at point 'B26' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
South-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2379, 2375, 2468 and ends at point 'B27' of the
village Pakri Barwadih.
(28) Line B27-B28: The line starts at point 'B27' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2468, 2374, 2363 and ends at point 'B28' of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(29) Line B28-B29: The line starts at point 'B28' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2363, 2362 and ends at point 'B29'of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(30) Line B29-B30: The line starts at point 'B29' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2362, 2361, 2359, 2358, 2325, 2324 and ends at
point 'A30' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(31) Line B30-B31: The line starts at point 'B30' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards
North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2324, 2323, 2276, 2275, 2274, 2273 and ends at
point 'A31' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(32) Line B31-B32: The line starts at point 'B31' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2273, 2274 and ends at point 'A32' of the
village Pakri Barwadih.
(33) Line B32-B33: The line starts at point 'B32' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2274, 2270, 2269 and ends at point 'A33'
of the village Pakri Barwadih.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2789
(34) Line B33-B34: The line starts at point 'B33' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2269, 2268 and ends at point 'A34' of the
village Pakri Barwadih.
(35) Line B34-B35: The line starts at point 'B34' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2268, 2251, 2230 and ends at point 'A35'
of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(36) Line B35-B36: The line starts at point 'B35' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2230, 1718, 2216, 2033, 2032, 2028, 2029
and ends at point 'A36' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(37) Line B36-B37: The line starts at point 'B36' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards South-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2029, 2025, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020 and
ends at point 'A37' of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(38) Line B37-B38: The line starts at point 'B37' located on South-West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot nos. 2020, 2019, 1950 and ends at point 'A38'
of the village Pakri Barwadih.
(39) Line B38-B39: The line starts at point 'B38' located on South-West corner of village Pakri 8arwadih which moves
towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 1950 and ends at point 'A39' of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
(40) Line B39-B: The line starts at point 'B39' located on West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves
towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot no. 1950 and ends at point 'B' of the village
Pakri Barwadih.
[F. No. 43015/02/2011-PRIW-I/Vol. II]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1077-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèkfu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh] Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 1022]
rkjh[k 15 ebZ] 2013] ds Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 18 ebZ] 2013 lkIrkfgd esa izdkf'kr
gksus ij mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph ^d* esa o£.kr 482-660 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 1192-65 ,dM+ (yxHkx) Hkwfe ds Hkwry vf/dkj
vkSj vuqlwph ^[k* esa o£.kr 72-000 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 177-91 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh mDr Hkwfe esa ;k Hkwfe ij ds lHkh vf/dkj
(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks_
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] Mkd?kj la[;k 60]
ftyk&fcykliqj&495006 (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk
vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s rS;kj gS A
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd
bl izdkj fufgr mDr vuqlwph ^d* esa o£.kr 482-660 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 1192-65 ,dM+ (yxHkx) Hkwfe esa Hkwry vf/dkj vkSj vuqlwph
^[k* esa o£.kr 72-000 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 177-91 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh mDr Hkwfe esa ;k Hkwfe ij ds lHkh vf/dkj rkjh[k 18 ebZ]
2013 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh
esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&
(1) ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu ;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlku vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~ fd,
x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriw£r djsxh_
2790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ (1) ds v/hu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s ,d vf/dj.k
dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj ,sls vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ksa esa mixr lHkh
O;;] dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj ds fy;s ;k mlds laca/ esa tSls vihy vkfn
lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs_
(3) ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inkf/dkfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa] {kfriw£r djsxh tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/
esa vko';d gks_
(4) ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha
gksxh_ vkSj
(5) ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy;s
fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir dh tk,] ikyu djsxh A
[iQk- la- 43015@27@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014
S.O. 1077.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal
number S.O. 1022 dated 15th May, 2013 published in the Gazette of India, Part - II, Section - 3, sub-section (ii) dated the 18th
May, 2013 weekly, issued under sub-section (i) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land measuring 482.660 hectares (approximately) or 1192.65
acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over the said land described in Schedule 'A' and the land measuring 72.000
hectares (approximately) or 177.91 acres (approximately) as all rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule 'B'
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government
free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act; .
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, P. B.
No. 60, District-Bilaspur- 495006 (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms
and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the Surface Rights in the lands measuring 482.660 hectares (approximately) or 1192.65
acres (approximately) described in Schedule 'A' and All Rights in or over the land measuring 72.000 hectares (approxi-
mately) or 177.91 acres (approximately) described in the schedule 'B' so vested in it shall with effect from 18th May, 2013
instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the Government company subject to the following
terms and conditions namely:-
(1) The Government company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of com-
pensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
(2) A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Govern-
ment by the Government company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal
and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government company and similarly, all expenditure
incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands so
vesting shall also be borne by the Government company;
(3) The Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expendi-
ture that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials
regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vesting;
(4) The Government company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the
prior approval of the Central Government; and
(5) The Government company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the
Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/27/2009 - PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2791
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1078-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
dksy ne gkbMªksbysfDVªd ikWoj izkstsDV] us'kuy FkeZy ikWoj
dkjiksjs'ku] fcykliqj&vksBslZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua-&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&2&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42012@170@2010&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2014
S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 1/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 1, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro
Electric Power Project, NTPC, Bilaspur & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-42012/170/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 01 of 2011. Reference No. L-42012/170/2010-
IR(DU) dated 21-03-2011
Sher Singh S/o Sh. Gandhi Ram, President District
CITU, District Committee Mandi 221 / 1 0, Thanera
Mohalla, Mandi (HP).
. . . Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Distt. Bilaspur
(HP). Bilaspur.
2.
The Managing Director, M/s. U.R. Infrastructure
Co. Pvt. Ltd, Vill. Kayan, P.O.Slapper, Teh-
Sundernagar.
3.
The Project Manager. Italian Thai Development
Company. Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, Village Kayan, PO Slapper, Teh.
Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
. . . Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Mr. V. P. Singh for Respdt.
No.l .
None for other respondents
AWARD
Passed On : 18.02.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/170/2010-IR(DU) dated 21.03.2011
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication :
Term of Reference
“Whether the action of the employer of M/s U.R.
Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd., a sub contractor of M/s.
Indian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. in the
Koldam Hydra-Electric Project of NTPC, Bilaspur
(HP) vide their order dated 01/1/2008 in terminating
of services of Shri Sher Singh S/o. Shri Gandhi Ram
without following the principle of last come first go
is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to ?’’
2. Case taken up today for passing the award.
Despite repeated opportunities, none appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. The
reference is pending in this Tribunal since 2011. None
appeared on behalf of the workman despite registered notice
also. It appears that the workman is not interested to pursue
the present reference. In view of the above the present
reference is disposed off and answered against the
workman as no claim has been lodged on behalf of the
workman.
3. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
18.02.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1079-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
dksy ne gkbMªksbysfDVªd ikWoj izkstsDV] us'kuy FkeZy ikWoj
dkjiksjs'ku] fcykliqj ,aM vksBslZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
2792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua-&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42012@164@2010&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2014
S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 40/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 1, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro
Electric Power Project, NTPC, Bilaspur & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-42012/164/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 40 of 2010. Reference No. L-42012/164/2010-
IR (DU) dated 18.02.2011
Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Singh, VPO Luhakhar,
PO Kapai, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi (HP).
. . . Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager. Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj.Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village
Kayan, PO Slapper, The. Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
3.
The Proj. Manager, M/s. ITD Cementation India
Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro-Electric Power Project, Village
Kayan. PO Slapper, The. Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
. . . Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. Neeraj Srivastava and
V. P. Singh, Advocate
AWARD
Passed On : 18.2.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L- 42012/164/2010/IR(DU) dated 18.02.2011
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication :
Term of Reference
“Whether retrenchment of services of Shri Naresh
Kumar S/o Shri Hari Singh, VPO Luhakhar, Tehsil
Sadar, Distt, Mandi (HP) by the Project Manager,
M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd., Village Kyan, PO
Slapper, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi vide order
dated 13-08-2008 without following the principle of
last come first go is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. Case taken up today for passing the award. Despite
repeated opportunities, none appeared for the workman
nor any claim statement has been filed. The reference is
pending in this Tribunal since 2010. None appeared on
behalf of the workman despite registered notice also. It
appears that the workman is not interested to pursue the
present reference. In view of the above the present reference
is disposed off and answered against the workman as no
claim has been lodged on behalf of the workman.
3. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
18.02.20 14
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1080-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
dksy ne gkbMªksbysfDVªd ikWoj izkstsDV] us'kuy FkeZy ikWoj
dkjiksjs'ku] fcykliqj ,aM vksBslZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua-&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42012@167@2010&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2014
S.O. 1080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 44/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 1, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro
Electric Power Project, NTPC, Bilaspur & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-42012/167/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2793
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 44 of 2010. Reference No. L-42012/167/2010/
IR(DU) dated 14-02-2011
Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Dhyan Singh, C/o Shri Rajesh Kumar
Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee Mandi,
221/1 0, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi (HP).
. . . Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj.Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village
Kayan, PO Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
3.
The Managing Director, M/s. U.R.Infrastructure
Co.Pvt.Ltd., Village Kayan, PO Slapper, Teh.
Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
. . . Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Mr. V. P. Singh for Respdt.
No.l .
None for other respondents
AWARD
Passed On : 18.2.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/167/2010/IR(DU) dated 14-02-2011
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference
“Whether the action of the employer of M/s. U.R.
Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd., a sub contractor of M/s.
Indian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. in the
Koldam Hydra-Electric Project of NTPC, Barmana,
Dist. Bilaspur (HP) vide order dated 13-09-2008 in
discharge from services w.e.f. 15-09-2008 of Shri
Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Dhyan Singh is legal, fair
and justified? If not, what relief the above workman
is entitled to from the above Employer?” .
2. Case taken up today for passing the award. Despite
repeated opportunities, none appeared for the workman
nor any claim statement has been filed. The reference is
pending in this Tribunal since 2010. None appeared on
behalf of the workman despite registered notice also. It
appears that the workman is not interested to pursue the
present reference. In view of the above the present
reference is disposed off and answered against the
workman as no claim has been lodged on behalf of the
workman.
3. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
18.02.20 14
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1081-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
dksy ne gkbMªksbysfDVªd ikWoj izkstsDV] us'kuy FkeZy ikWoj
dkjiksjs'ku] fcykliqj ,aM vksBslZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua-&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42012@158@2010&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2014
S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 34/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 1, now as shown in the the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro
Electric Power Project, NTPC, Bilaspur & Others and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-42012/158/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 34 of 2010. Reference No. L-42012/158/2010-
IR(DU) dated 18.02.2011
Balak Ram S/o Sh. Niku Ram, Village Bantrel, PO Baroti,
Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi(HP)
. . . Workman
2794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village
Kayan, PO Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
3.
The Proj. Manager, M/s. ITD Cementation India
Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro-Electric Power Project, Village
Kayan. PO Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
. . . Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. Neeraj Srivastava and
V.P.Singh for Respdt. No. 3
and 1. None for Respodt.
No. 2.
AWARD
Passed On : 18.2.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/158/2010/IR(DU)dated 18-02-2011
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication :
Term of Reference
“Whether retrenchment of services of Shri Balak Ram
S/o Shri Nikku Ram. Village Bantrel, PO Baroti, Tehsil
Sundernagar, Distt, Mandi (HP) by the Project
Manager, M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd., Village
Kyan, PO Slapper, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi
vide order dated 13-08-2008 without following the
principle of last come first go is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
2. Case taken up today for passing the award. Despite
repeated opportunities, none appeared for the workman
nor any claim statement has been filed. The reference is
pending in this Tribunal since 2010. None appeared on
behalf of the workman despite registered notice also. It
appears that the workman is not interested to pursue the
present reference. In view of the above the present reference
is disposed off and answered against the workman as no
claim has been lodged on behalf of the workman.
3. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
18.02.20 14
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1082-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
cSad uksV izsl] nsokl ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@213@90) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&16011@01@90&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2014
S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/213/90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court , Jabalpur , now as shown in the the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of General Manager, Bank Note Press,
Dewas and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-16011/01/90-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/213/90
Shri R. B. Patle, Presiding Officer
General Secretary,
Bank Note Press shramik Sangh,
1265, Bank Note Press Colony,
Dewas
. . . Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Bank Note Press,
Dewas
. . . Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of February, 2014
1. As per letter dated 2-11/8-11-90 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of ID Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-16011/
1/90-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to :
“ Whether the workers of Bank Note Press, Dewas
are required to give production of 48 bundles in 8
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2795
hours of normal working as claimed by the
management of 32 bundles in 8 hours as claimed by
the Union?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union filed Statement of claim at Page
6/1 to 6/6. Union submits that the reference is bad. That
Central Government has made reference without application
of mind mechanically. The reference is extremely vague. It
does not give clear indication as to what is required to be
decided by the Tribunal. The reference does not speak of
any relief as such it is incomplete. The reference is belated.
Union submits that for 8 hours duty, quota of 32 bundles
of notes per employee at the final counting sections was
fixed. Any change in such such quote is not justified. That
production of notes in Bank Note Press was not
commensurate with the demand of the RBI on persistent
demand from management, in the larger interests of the
nation, the workers agreed to give 32 bundles per day for 8
hours working without deriving any additional benefit. That
said increase was agreed to as temporary measure and
with the clear that after meeting the urgent need of bank
notes, the management will revert back to the quota of 24
bundles. It is submitted that the management did not keep
its words and continue to extract quota of 32 bundles from
employees.
3. In 1973, (1995), emergency was imposed in the
yielding the unlimited emergency powers, the then General
Manager threatening termination of services of the workers
compelled to give 40 bundles of 9 hours. Then management
came up with an adhoc scheme, workers were forced to do
64 bundles per day for 9 hours. Working with adhoc
incentive of Rs. 50 per month. The workers were new
recruits. They were not aware of the industrial policy of the
Government. Meanwhile management appointed private
consultant M/s. IBCON for work study and suggestion of
an incentive scheme for the Press. Any of the Union were
not associated with such study taking powers during
emergency. The management unilaterally imposed scheme
suggested by IBCON.
4. That Union further submits that in shift of 8 hours
the actual time available to the workmen was hardly 4 hours.
The remaining time is lost by way of the margin time given
for punching comparing replacing and numbering etc.
section adjustment allocation of work, supply of notes by
the feeding section after completion O.K The section margin
of 1/2 hours given for searching at both the lunch and
closing time. The work is altogether different in nature
requiring atmost care and caution. The quota of 32 bundles
for actual 4 hours working itself is too much. The job of
workmen cannot be compared with others. By unilateral
imposition of enhanced quota, if a workmen defaults due
to hurry in completion of work, if it happens that layman
get a packet containing 99 notes, he will lose confidence in
the banking system.
5. Union submits that production of Bank Note
started in February 1975. Initially the target fixed was 24
bundles for 8 hours duty. This quota was fixed after
thorough study and conducting practical test. The
agreement between management and workers expected
normal production after detailed examination. In. 1975,
management impressed on Union that there was lot of
pressure from Government of India to increase production.
There was increase in demand of note by Central Govt.
The management personally requested workers they
should agree for increase in daily production as a temporary
measure. Even though 24 bundles per day was a requisite
production, as a special case the workers agreed to increase
the production to 32 bundles in interest of the State. That
it was a temporary measure. The quota would be reverted
back to 24 bundles for 8 hours duty. However management
did not reduce the quota taking advantage of emergency.
Management increased production to 40 bundles for 9
hours. That when management introduced consultant
IBCON for work study, the workers or Union were not
associated with the study. One sided arbitrary inspection
was done by IBCON. The management forced their will on
the workers. Evenafter recommendation of IBCON working
hours were reduced to 8 hours. The production norms were
fixed at 32 bundles in 8 hours as normal production. Union
reiterates that only 4 hours were utilized for actual
production and the remaining hours is taken for preparation
and other ancillary job which was nothing to do with the
production. That the work requires 5 degree of caution to
avoid any mistake. Merely somebody is able to give
production of more bundle, it cannot be basis for regular
working. Management is stopped challenging quota of 32
bundle for 8 hours duty during past 17 years. The principle
of waiver is applicable. Looking to nature of work,
importance of work, time taken for preparation and ancillary
work, security aspect, delicate nature of job, systematic
working needs to be considered while fixing the norms of
production. That production of 32 bundle in 8 hours itself
was excessive, originally it was 24 bundles.
6. In 1985, management entered into an agreement
with the Union and has accepted 32 bundles for 16 hours.
There is no change in circumstances to increase work load
from 32 bundles to 48 bundles. The increase in norms of
production is unjustified. Union submits that production
of norms should not be changed to 48 bundles per 8 hours
duty.
7. Management filed Written Statement at Page 8/1
to 8/17. The management submits that the Bank Note Press
is a departmental undertaking directly controlled by Govt.
of India. It is engaged in printing of notes and supply to
Reserve Bank of India. Prior to establishment of Bank Note
Press, there was only one Security Printing Press engaged
in printing of currency i.e. Currency Note Press, Nashik
road. That Bank Note Press started as a project in June
1969. It was commissioned in the later part of 1974. Total
2796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1338 post of different grades were sanctioned in the
organizational chart. The kind of machinery installed in the
press were not available anywhere in India. The machines
were imported from abroad. Except in Currency Note Press,
Nashik Road, no where the system relating to printing,
process, checking, counting, final counting and packing
etc. was available. After giving initial training by certain
staff brought on transfer from Nashik Road, the production
was slowly started in Bank Note Press. After machinery
were commissioned in 1974 and first consignment of the
Bank Note printed in Bank Note Press, Dewas was
dispatched in March 1975. Since more than 95% of the
permanent persons employed in the Printing and finishing
process were not having the required expertise to achieve
the expected production at par with Nashik press, it took
months together to attain the required production. The
production of notes during March 1975 to August 1975
was that it took time in accelerating the fmished products
at the finishing end as shown in Annexures. The
production was of 30 packets at fmal counters in initial
stage. After introduction of 9 hours working with adhoc
incentive scheme, the fmished production picked up further
as shown in Annexures.
8. During the infancy stage, Govt. of India felt the
necessity to have time and motion study for deciding the
manning pattern and production norm. Expert Industrial
consultant was appointed for conducting fresh study as
per letter dated 30-6-75. On recommendations of said
committee, the Government of India introduced group
incentive scheme besides various creation/upgradation of
posts. The objective of incentive scheme was to boost
level of production to help workers in earning additional
income for working more than 8 hours discouraging
absenteeism. As per incentive scheme, norms of base level
production at 100% efficiency and norms of production at
120% efficiency during 9 hours shift working and
production as per machine day for 8 hours working was
made. It is reiterated by IInd party that incentive scheme
was implemented from 1-1-1978 after agreement with the
two Unions. Bank Note Press Karmchari Sangh and Bank
Note Mudranalaya Karmchari Parishad. Agreements with
both Union were identical.
9. The recommendations of M/s. IBCON Pvt. Ltd.
were accepted by Government. The final output of l305
million pieces at 100% production index was to be obtained.
That as per said computation, 4.4 million pieces at 100%
production index was to be given for 9 hours working. Its
final comes to not less than 76 bundles per day. If
production was increased above 100% norms required, the
employee were entitled to incentive payment according to
final production achieve d. Workmen were paid incentive
during 1-1-78 to 10-9-83 for additional production achieved
over the base level production of 56 bundles per final count
per day. On 11-9-83, agreement was made with Bank Note
Mudranalaya Karmchari Parishad other than the Ist party
Union. As per said agreement, system of incentive payment
was dispensed with without changing the parameters.
Instead it was agreed to calculate the incentive @ 0.7% of
the wages for each 1% increase in the production over the
base level. As per para 3(b) of the said agreement, the base
level output per shift in the control deptt. Was reckoned as
2.64 million pieces of the mixed denomination. Accordingly
the employees were paid incentive w.e.f. 11-9-83.
10. That on introduction of 11 hours working in the
Press, another agreement was again entered into with Bank
Note Mudranalaya Shramik Sangh and Other Union in
1984. The norm of base level for 11 hours working was
fixed 3.384 million pieces per day. For any extra production
above this base level, employees were entitled to incentive
0.7% for each 1% increase in production. 11 hour shift
working was introduced in Press from 3-7-84 after
modifying incentive scheme. After modified incentive
scheme, the norms of standard base level production of
56 bundles for final count of 9 working and 48 bundles for
8 hours per day. With the introduction of 11 hours working
in the Press, the base level production has been enhanced
to 72 bundles and incentive is being paid every month for
additional production achieved over base level prescribed
for 1 hour working. The workmen were earning incentive
upto 48% during 9 hours working and upto 64 to 68%
during 11 hours working for production achieved over the
base level. The production of 48 bundles for 8 hours working
was accepted by recognized Union. Whenever Press was
put in normal 8 hour working for reasons beyond control
of management, workmen at instance of Union disregarded
the production of norms of 48 bundles. The production
used to be reduced than the standard production norms.
Such unilateral reduction in production was to pressurize
management to restore extended hours with overtime
allowance and incentive. The various circulars were issued
in January to March 1990 by the management. That present
dispute arose due to pressure tactics of the Union.
11. The management reiterates that reduction in
normal production 8 hours working is not based on
scientific study which is not justified. Giving production
of only 32 bundles in 8 hours duty is not rational or logical.
As per recommendations of M/s. IBCON 48 bundles for 8
hours working, 56 bundles for 9 hours working is
recommended. It is accepted by Government and recognized
Union. Employees have been giving 56 bundles at final
counting stage as normal production and earning incentive
for additional production above the base level during
1-1-78 to 2-7-84. Management denies that employees were
giving production of only 32 bundles. The norms of normal
production during 8 hours working has been fixed for
various action taking final output. 48 bundles for 8 hours
at final counting and 56 bundles for 9 hours at final counting.
It is reiterated that incentive scheme was provided. That
due to outstanding demands by various Union reduction
in production has been resorted.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2797
12. The Control Staff has boycotted overtime working
with incentive on 24-1-90 onwards, therefore Press was
put to normal working during 24-1-90 to 19-2-90. Union
resorted to normal production of 48 bundles to 32 bundles
in 8 hours. The agreement had reached between
management and the Union in December 1977 and 11-9:.83.
Only after reaching agreement dated 9-3-90, Union started
giving established production of 9 hours working :
56 bundles plus 20 bundles towards incentive per final
counter. Workmen were earning incentive 40 - 45% for
production achieved above the base level production of
56 bundles during 9 hours working. Management submits
that for working less by one hour, the production cannot
be 32 bundles per 8 hours. It is reiterated that normal base
level production 48 bundles is proper and justified. All
other contentions of Union that base level production of
32 bundles for 8 hours working has been denied.
Management prays that if Union can accept 56 bundle
without incentive for 9 hours working, it cannot be reduced
to 24 bundles for reduction of 1 hour working. According
to management, normal production for 8 hours should be
48 bundles not 32 bundles as claimed by the Union.
13. Union filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/13
reiterating its contentions in Statement of claim. That norms
of production should be 32 bundles per 8 hours working
and not 48 bundles claimed by the management. It is
submitted that the work was extracted from employees
giving different kind of incentives, promotions. The
agreements were extracted from Union by coercive process.
It is not only possible to give production of 48 bundles per
8 hours by the workmen. The claim of the management for
production of 48 bundles is without justification and it
should not be accepted.
14. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My fmdings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the workers of
Dispute under reference
Bank Note Press, Dewas are
Cannot be effectively
required to give production
adjudicated for lack of
of 48 bundles in 8 hours of
proper evidence.
normal working as claimed
by the management of 32
bundles in 8 hours as claimed
by the Union ?
REASONS
15. The dispute under reference relates to whether
the employees of Bank Note Press should give production
of 48 bundles in 8 hours working as claimed by the
management or 32 bundles in 8 hours as claimed by the
Union. The pleadings between parties further shows that
incentive scheme was introduced from 1-1-1978. As per
pleadings of the management, the target of 1305 million
pieces of notes were to be produced as an index of 100%
production. As per agreement dated 11-9-83, the incentive
scheme was dispensed without changing the parameters.
It was agreed to calculate 0.7% incentive for each 1%
increase in production. As per Para 3(b) of said agreement,
the base level output per shift in the control deptt. Was
reckoned as 2.64 million pieces of the mixed denomination.
Accordingly the employees were paid incentive w.e.f.
11-9-83. That introduction of 11 hours working was
introduced in June 1994. The base level norms fixed were
3.384 million pieces per day. As per para-11 of the Written
Statement, the workman could earn incentive upto 48%
during 9 hours working and upto 64 to 68% during 11 hours
working. However the evidence adduced by parties is not
consistent with pleadings of the Union or management.
16. The identical affidavit of evidence filed by the
witnesses for Ist party Union Dilip Surve and Motilal
Turangariya. They have stated that in larger interest of
nation, workers agreed to give 32 bundles per day for 8
hours without deriving additional benefit. The management
did not revert to 24 bundles for 8 hours but persistent with
32 bundles. The production of Bank Note Press started in
1975. At the time target was fixed for 24 bundles per day. In
June 1975, emergency was declared. Taking advantage of
the emergency, the management again increased the
production to 40 bundles for 9 hours. Incentive scheme
came into force from 1-9-77 implemented on 1-1-1978. The
agreement with management that both Union shows 9
hours working production norms 1305 million notes. Any
of such agreements are not produced on record. It is not
understood whether all such agreements were in writing or
oral. Shri Dilip Surve in his cross-examination says benefit
of incentive scheme of 1978 was taken by him and members
of the Union. That his Union had not entered in agreement
of 1984 for giving production of 48 bundles for 8 hours
working. Shri Motilal Turangariya in his cross-examination
denies that as per incentive scheme production of 48
bundles in 8 hours working, 56 bundles in 9 hours working,
72 bundles in 12 hours working was to be given. In his
further cross-examination, he says that in 1984, incentive
scheme was introduced. He has not produced any
document about protesting the incentive scheme.
17. Shri S.K. Mathur in his affidavit of evidence
supported the management’s claim of giving production of
48 bundles in 8 hours working, 56 bundles in 9 hours
working. As per study report submitted by IBCON, each
final counter has to count 8000 notes per hour. In his cross-
examination, said witness says that his affidavit is based
on record. The incentive scheme introduced by management
was accepted by the Union. Said agreement was entered in
1977. The witness was unable to tell whether the agreement
was signed by the office bearers of Bank Note Mudranalaya
Shramik Sangh. Said Bipartite Agreement was not produced
in Court. He denies that incentive scheme is not bearing
signature of any of the office bearers of the Trade Union.
2798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
As per IBCON report, production of 56 bundles is to be
given for 9 hours working, 48 bundles for 8 hours working.
He denies that in 1985 there was agreement of giving
production of 32 bundles for 8 hours. He denies that out of
8 hours working, 4 hours are wasted for search and other
formalities of the employees. He agrees that in affidavit of
evidence of Motilal, Para 19 to 21 during emergency period,
the workers were giving production of 64 bundles in 9
hours working. Those employees were paid over time for
one hour.
18. The evidence of management’s witness Shri S. B.
Deshmuch supported claim of management as per IBCON
study report. In para-8 of his affidavit he has stated that for
8 hours working production of 48 bundles and for 9 hours
working 56 bundles is required to be given. Each final
counter has to count 8000 notes per hour. In his cross-
examination, he says that he joined Bank Note Press in
1973. Printing started in 1974, finishing started in 1975.
That in place of old machines of 1975, new machines are
installed in 1988. That Bank Note Press started working
initially 24 bundles production was given. The production
was increased to 32 bundles. The evidence of witnesses
for Union or the management is not based on any practical
study or scientific study of the motion of machine and
working speed of the employees. The evidence of the
management’s witness Shri Dahake is also on the same
lines.
19. The Bank Note Press was started in 1975.
Incentive scheme was introduced from 1-8-78. Said
incentive scheme was discontinued in 1983 when
agreement was entered between management and the
Union. As per the said agreement for increase of 1% in
production, incentive of 0.7% was to be paid to the
employees. Those agreement are not produced on record.
Annexure III & IV and motion study report alleged to be
submitted by IBCON mainly deals with payment of
incentive to the employees for improvement in their
performance beyond prescribed level. The production on
account of working for more than 54 hours per week. That
no person will be entitled to incentive payment for the
period he is absent. Calculation of incentive payment is on
the basis of basic pay only. Incentive payment will not be
taken into account for computation of over time allowance
etc. the norms of 100%, 120% per man day or machine day
for 9 hours work. In Para-6 of Annexure IV rates of incentives
are prescribed. The base level production 75% utilization
of machine, incentive payment of 40% of basic pay for
100% production, incentive payment of 60% of basic pay
for 120% production 60% of basic pay and same varies
with different categories of employees. Normal production
norms in terms of bundles of notes to be produced is not
prescribed in Annexure IV. In Annexure V, there is reference
of standard strength of workman as recommended by M/s.
IBCON and accepted by the Government. The final output
of 1305 million pieces of notes. 100% production index and
1565 million piece of notes at 120% production index per
annum will be obtained which will be computed as 4.4 million
pieces and 5.28 million pieces of notes per day respectively.
It doesnot refer to the bundle of notes to be produced.
Annexure V further refers to final counting will have to
count not less than 76 bundles and 92 bundles per day
(9 hours working) respectively. It is not signed by the office
bearers of the Ist party Union. How the norms of production
were recommended in Annexure V has not come on record.
Union doesnot get opportunity to cross-examine the
material witness what were the criterias adopted while
recommending the production of bundles of notes in
Annexure V. in absence of such evidence, claim of the
management that production of 48 bundles in 8 hours
working should be fixed cannot be accepted. Though the
Union is claiming that there was agreement for giving
production of 32 bundles in 8 hours, any such agreement
is not produced or proved from the witnesses of the Union.
Rather it is not happy to state that the documents produced
by the parties, no case is taken to prove the same. Mere
production of document cannot be accepted as legal
evidence.
20. Management’s witness Shri K. K. Padit tried to
support claim of management for production norms
48 hours per 8 hours. He has also given details of about
initial working of Bank Note Press since 1975, appointment
of IBCON for study of man motion and machine motion. In
his cross-examination, said witness says he never worked
in the Factory. The documents seen by him before drafting
his affidavit are produced along with Statement of Claim.
That in 1975, production started. The work load of employees
was not fixed as employees were not trained. Work load
was fixed as introduction of incentive in 1975, 8 hours was
increased to 9 hours per day. He was unable to say the
date. The final target for 8 hours working was 24 bundle. In
1977, working hours increased to 9 hours. He was unable
to say after increase to 9 hours per day, the target was fixed
as 32 bundles or not. In 1975, IBCON was appointed by
Govt. of India to study. He admits that in said study
committee , Union representative was not included. The
committee submitted its report in 1977. He denies that as
per report of said committee, working hours were fixed 8
hours per day, target of production 32 bundles. He denies
that management has assured if requirement was reduced
from RBI, the production norms would be fixed as 24
bundles. He claimed ignorance whether employees were
directed to give production of 24 bundles, 32, 40, 48, 64
bundles. When any of the employees were not included in
IBCON Committee, any of the Investigator who had
prepared report of IBCON Committee is not examined to
prove what was the basis for calculating the targeted
production. The report submitted by IBCON Annexure IV,
V cannot be a proper basis for deciding the norms of
production.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2799
21. No evidence has come on record about the
working capacity of the employees. The speed in which
the machines could work and the normal production could
be given on such machine by the employees. In absence of
such evidence, the norms of production claimed by
management 48 bundles cannot be fixed. Union prays norms
should be fixed 32 bundles. They are already giving
production at such rate. However no agreement between
Union and the management is produced on record.
Therefore I donot find it proper to fix norms of 32 bundles
for 8 hours working claimed by the Union. The evidence
on record shows Bank Note Press started functioning in
1975 during days of emergency, the working hours and
production norms were increased. As per pleadings, there
were subsequent agreements but those agreements are
not proved. The evidence further shows that incentive
scheme was discontinued in 1983-84. Incentive Scheme as
per IBCON report was discontinued. It cannot be the basis
for determining the norms of production discussed above.
Proper evidence is not adduced by the parties for deciding
norms of production for 8 hours working of employees
therefore the claim of either parties cannot be accepted
with regard to norms of production. The dispute cannot be
decided for want of proper evidence. Accordingly I record
my fmding.
22. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
For want of proper evidence for deciding norms
of production, claim of Union for giving
production of 32 bundles for 8 hours, claim of
management giving 48 bundles for 8 hours is not
accepted. The dispute could not be decided for
want of proper evidence.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1083-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vflLVsaV
bathfu;j ekbØksoso eSUVsuds Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] jryke
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@15@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&40012@48@2006&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2014
S.O. 1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/15/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of The Assistant Engineer, Microwave
Maintenance, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ratlam and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-40012/48/2006-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUS1RIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/15/2007
Shri R. B. Patle, Presiding Officer.
General Secretary,
SC/ST/OBC Karmchari Kalyan Parishad,
9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
. . . Workman/Union
Versus
The Asstt. Engineer,
Microwave Maintenance,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
O/O. Divisional Engineer,
Microwave Maintenance,
HPO Compound,
Ratlam (MP)
. . . Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th day of February, 2014)
1. As per letter dated 9-1-2007 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/
48/2006-IR (DU). THe dispute under reference relates to :
“ Whether the action of the management of Assistant
Engineer, Microwave Maintenance, BSNL, Ratlam in
terminating the services of their workman Shri Noor
Mohammed S/o Shri Hameed Shah w.e.f. 4-1-92 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 3/1 to
3/5. Case of workman is that he was working from 1-10-86
to 4-1-92 with IInd party. He had worked more than 240
days during each calendar year, his services were terminated
without notice without paying retrenchment compensation,
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. He further submits
that he was working in Microwave Project Ahmedabad at
Khachrod station. He was engaged by Assistant Engineer
on daily wages Rs.26 as watchman. The work of said
2800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Microwave Project was completed in September 1990. The
project was handed over for maintenance. He was working
in maintenance Ratlam form October 90 to 4-1-92 while
Mr.Dhanwani were Assistant Engineer. That he was
covered as workman under Section 25-B of I.D.Act. His
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G & H
of I.D.Act. principles of first come last go was not followed.
That he was not engaged when other persons were engaged
after his services. That his name was appearing at Sl.No.34
in the list while working in Ahmedabad Microwave Project.
On such ground, workman is praying for his reinstatement
with consequential benefits.
3. Workman died during pendency of reference, his
widow Smt. Jahar.B is substituted as LRs.
4. IInd party filed Writeen Statement. Preliminary
objection is raised that the reference is not tenable.
Workman had worked for 96 days in 1991, 134 days in
1991-92. Ahmedabad Microwave Project is different.
Maintenance Ratlam is not concerned with it workman has
not completed 240 days continuous service. It is denied
that workman was engaged as Assistant Engineer on daily
wages from 1-10-86. The documents relied by workman are
denied. Workman is not entitled to protection of Section
25-F of I.D.Act. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
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 Assistant
Engineer, Microwave
Maintenance, BSNL, Ratlam in
terminating the services of
their workman Shri Noor
Mohammed S/o Shri Hameed
Shah w.e.f. 4-1-92 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging legality of termination of
his services claiming that he was working as daily wages
as watchman from 1-10-86. In Ahmedabad Microwave
Project. Said project was handed over for maintenance to
Ratlam office, he was working till 4-1-92. His services are
terminated without notice. IInd party denied all above
contentions of workman. However Written Statement is
filed only by Divisional Engineer Ratlam. The reference
order shows that Director, Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi is
also party to the reference. Said authority has not caused
appearance.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his claim but he could not be made available for cross-
examination as he died during pendency. Documents Exhibit
W-l, W-2 admitted by IInd party shows deceased workman
worked for 96 days in 1991, 134 days in 1991-92. No other
evidence is produced by workman or his LRs about the
deceased had completed more than 240 days working. The
evidence of management’s witness S.S.Tiwari is devoted
on most of the contentions raised in Written Statement
that workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service during any of the year. In his cross-examination
management’s witness admitted documents Exhibit W-3,
W-4. Exhibit W-4 shows that gratuity amount of Rs. 9692
was paid to the deceased. Said document does not show
the actual working days.
8. Widow of workman filed his affidavit stating that
her husband was continuously working from October 86
to September 1990. Her husband was continuously working
for 5 years and 3 months till November 1991. Her husband
was paid gratuity Rs. 9692 by Bank in UBI. Management
did not cross-examine her. Her evidence remained
unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve her evidence.
Evidence of widow of workman is corroborated by
document Exhibit W-4. The services of deceased workman
are terminated without issuing notice, no retrenchment
compensation is paid to him. Workman was working for
more than 5 years. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No.l in Negative.
9. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.l,
question arises whether workman is entitled for back wages.
Workman has died during pendency, there is no question
of his reinstatement or back wages. Workman had
completed service more than 5 years. His services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore
the Ist party workman is entitled for reasonable
compensation. Considering deceased workman was
working for more than 5 years in the Microwave Project of
Telecom, compensation Rs. 75,000 would be proper.
Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.2.
10. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1)
The action of the management of Assistant
Engineer, Microwave Maintenance, BSNL, Ratlam
in terminating the services of their workman
Shri Noor Mohammed S/o. Shri Hameed Shah
w.e.f. 4-1-92 is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000 to the LRs of the deceased workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the· date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2801
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1084-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWfiQlj&
bu&pktZ] lsaVªy Ý;wy fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV] fcykliqj ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@
vkj@51@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42011@102@99&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2014
S.O. 1084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/51/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of The Officer-in-charge, Central Fuel
Research Institute, Bilaspur and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-42011/102/99-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSIRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/51/2000
Shri R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
The Secretary,
Audhyogik Kshetra Mazdoor Sangh,
No. D/192, Agneynagar,
Bilaspur
. . . Workman/Union
Versus
The Officer-in-charge,
Central Fuel Research Institute,
Unit No.27, Khuli Chowk,
Post Box No. 41,
Bilaspur
. . . Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 12th day of February, 2014)
1. As per letter dated 2-3-2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42011/
102/99-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to :
“ Whether the action of the management of Central
Fuel Research Institute, Bilaspur (MP) in not treating
S/Sh. 1. Kalidas Manikpury, 2. Jogiram, 3. Shathrughan
Das, 4. Ramesh Das, 5. Johit Das, 6. Bohoranlal Yadav,
7. Aswini Kumar Lahore, 8. Chintharam Vasthrakar, 9.
Vijay Kumar Bandhe, 10. Sadhelal Mohale, 11.
Mahetar Das, 12. Churamani Das, 13. Santosh Kumar
Yadav and 14. Atit Mashi as their regular employees
and not paying their wages at par with their regular
employees is justified ? If not, to what relief the
workers are entitled ?”
2. After receiving reference notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is filed by all 13 workmen. It
is submitted by workmen that management Central Fuel
Research Institute, Bilaspur is undertaking of Govt. of India
for research work in field of science and technology at
Dhanbad. Its branch is at Bilaspur. Those workers were
directly engaged by the institute on different dates during
1986 to 1997. They were terminated from 2-8-99. All the
workmen submits that they were requesting management
for payment of minimum wages declared by Govt. but no
action was taken about their grievances. Application was
filed by Audhyogik Kshetra Mazdoor Sangh for
conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Bilaspur. Agreement was entered on 4-5-99. Though
management agreed claims of workman, however it started
taking action discontinued services of workman in
June-99 and August 99 by verbal order. Workmen submits
that termination of their services is illegal. They pray for
reinstatement.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3. Claim of 1st party workman is denied. IInd party submits
that CFRI is a research laboratory under the aegis of the
council of Scientific and Industrial Research. CSIR is a
registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1860.
There are as many as 40 national laboratories engaged in
R & D activities. There is no question of transferring their
services to contractors. It is submitted that workmen used
to unauthorisely enter the laboratory premises, shouting
slogans and staging dharana in the campus. Workman used
to threaten regular staff going to attend repair/maintenance
work in the campus/colony . They even ventured to threaten
to have a complete lock out of the laboratory. On such
ground, management prays for rejection of the claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the action of
Termination of services of
the management of Central Santosh Kumar Yadav is
Fuel Research Institute, illegal.
2802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bilaspur (MP) in not
treating S/Sh. 1. Kalidas
Manikpury, 2. Jogiram,
3.
Shathrughan
Das,
4. Ramesh Das, 5. Johit
Das, 6. Bohoranlal Yadav,
7. Aswini Kumar Lahore,
8. Chintharam Vasthrakar,
9. Vijay Kumar Bandhe,
10. Sadhelal Mohale,
11.
Mahetar
Das,
12.
Churamani
Das,
13. Santosh kumar Yadav
and 14. Atit Mashi as their
regular employees and not
paying their wages at par
with their regular employees
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
5. Workmen are challenging termination of their
services as per verbal order implying that the notice of
termination of services was not issued to them, no
retrenchment compensation was paid to them by IInd party.
Management denied employer-employee relationship. All
the workmen filed affidavit of their evidence. However
except Santosh Kumar Yadav, other workman did not
remained present for their cross-examination. As per
ordersheet dated 9-5-07, evidence of workman/Union was
closed observing that the only affidavit of Shri Santosh
Kumar Yadav has been cross-examined shall be considered
as the oral evidence of workman/Union and rest of the
affidavit filed on behalf of Union shall not be read as
evidence. Thus there is only evidence of Santosh Kumar
Yadav in support of his claim. Said witness has stated that
he was working in Ilnd party from 11-7-96 to 2-8-99. His
wages were not paid. Suddenly his services were terminated
without paying retrenchment compensation. Permission
of Government was not obtained for termination of his
services. That he was unemployed. In his cross-
examination, Santosh Kumar Yadav says appointment letter
was not given to him. He denied that he was engaged
through contractor. That he never worked under any
contractor. He claims ignorance about the contract system
in IInd party. As discussed above, evidence of other
workmen cannot be considered as they did not remain
present for their cross-examination. Ilnd party did not
adduce evidence. Evidence of Ilnd party was closed on
11-1-2011. Ilnd party has not produced any documents
about its establishment is registered under Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition )Act, 1970. No evidence is adduced
by Ilnd party about functioning and activities carried by it.
Therefore claim of Ilnd party that it being research
laboratory, provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable to it
cannot be upheld. Mere pleading cannot take the place of
proof. From evidence discussed above, it is clear that
services of workman Santosh Kumar Yadav are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Accordingly I record
my finding in Point No. 1.
6. In view of my finding in Point No.l, services of
Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav are terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether he is
entitled for reinstatement with back wages. As per the
evidence, he was working with Ilnd party from 1996 to
1999 for about 3 years. After termination of his services, he
was unemployed. His evidence is silent whether he was
engaged following recruitment process. Therefore in my
considered view, reinstatement with back wages would not
be justified. Reasonable compensation would be
appropriate. In my considered view, considering the age
and period of service rendered by Santosh Kumar Yadav
compensation Rs. 75,000 would be reasonable. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No.2.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1)
Action of the management in terminating services
of only Santosh Kumar Yadav is illegal. Claim of
other 12 workmen are rejected.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000 to workman Santosh Kumar Yadav.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman within 30 days. In case of default, amount
shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of
award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1085-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWfiQlj&
bu&pktZ] lsaVªy Ý;wy fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV] fcykliqj ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@
vkj@191@96) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
4&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&16011@04@95&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2014
S.O. 1085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/191/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2803
to the management of General Manager, Security Paper
Mill, Hoshangabad and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 4-3-2014.
[No. L-16011/04/95-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/191/96
Shri R. B. Patle, Presiding Officer.
General Secretary,
SC/ST Backward and Minorities
Employees Welfare Association,
1/135, SPM,
Hoshangabad
. . . Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Security Paper Mill,
Hoshangabad (MP)
. . . Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 14th day of February, 2014)
1. As per letter dated 30-9/1-10/96 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-16011/
4/95-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to :
“ Whether the action of the management of Security
Paper Mill in not promoting Shri R.K.Mehto being
senior most is justified? If not, to what relief he is
entitled to ?’
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union filed Statement of claim on
behalf of workman. Case of Union is that workman
Shri R.K.Mehto is its member. That workman is senior
most. That his junior is promoted vide order dated 2-1-93.
That Shri R.K.Mehto was working as writer from April
1983. The names of employees as per seniority are shown
in Para-4 of the statement of claim. Shri K.S.Thakur is
shown senior most writer. The name of Shri R.K. Mehto
appearing at S1.No.6 , Shri S.S. Imna at Sl. No. 9- ST
category. That K.S.Thakur and Imna were promoted as
canteen supervisor as per order dated 12-1-93. That
workman Shri R.K.Mehto is superseded. That workman
R.K. Mehto was working as writer for 9 years as on 1993,
considering his qualification and experience, he was
eligible for promotion to the post of Canteen supervisor.
However Mr. K.S.Thakur and Imna were promoted.
3. That in 1982 Shri K.S.Thakur was assigned work
of Assistant Canteen Supervisor. After few months, he
refused to continue. He went back to his parent
department. In 1991, he was offered post of canteen
supervisor but he refused to accept. In his place,
Shri Chandramani was promoted. As per order dated
16-11-92, he was offered post of Store Assistant.
Shri K.S.Thakur refused to accept said post. He repeatedly
refused promotions without justification. Workman have
submitted representation dated 4-1-93 objecting to
promotion of Shri K.S.Thakur and Imna. It was not
considered. Shri S.S.Imna was promoted from 22-12-92 in
General quota and not in Reserved quota. The seniority
and right of workman is ignored by the management. Shri
S. L. Uikey belonging to ST category was senior to Imna
and workman Mehta. Shri S. L. Uikey was promoted on
30-3-94 only after he had raised objection to the post of
Imna. To be precise, workman submits that he is denied
promotion and Imna, junior to him is promoted
superseding the workman. On above ground, workman
prays for his promotion from the date Shri Imna was
promoted.
4. IInd party filed written Statement at 5/1 to 5/6.
IInd party submits that workman Shri R.K. Mehto does
not belong to Reserved categories. He cannot be
represented by Ist party Union as he also does not belong
to minority community. Union has no locus to represent
the workman. It is further submitted that N.P.C. conducted
job study of the mill and its recommendations were
approved by Govt. are implemented from 21-10-92. That 5
post of canteen supervisor Grade “C” in Pay Scale 1350-
2200 were upgraded. Two existing Assistant Canteen
supervisor were also upgraded. 3 remaining post were
filled by promotion. That as per draft recruitment rules in
whole 50% of vacancies are filled from Head cooks
possessing the educational qualifications of matriculation
or equivalent with 2 years regular service in the scale of
Rs. 1320-2040 failing which from cooks not possessing
the said qualifications with 4 years regular service in scale
of Rs. 1200-1800, failing which from Lower Division Clerks
with 7 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 950 -1500
were eligible. Remaining 50% post were to be filled by
promotion of writer (unclassified industrial force) of
various sections with 2 years regular service in the scale
1320-2040. As 2 posts in the promotion roster ( point No.1,
2) were already filled up, the vacancies for promotion fell
at Point No. 3, 4 and 5 of the roster out of which Point
No. 4 was reserved to ST. The two vacancies falling under
Point No.3 and 4 were subsequently filled by promotion
one by a General Candidate senior to Shri R.K.Mehto-
2804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman (Shri K.S.Thakur) and ST candidate (Shri Imna).
That the writers have another promotional channel to the
post of time keeper. Shri R. K. Mehto along with two other
writers were promoted to the post of time keeper vide order
dated 6-8-93. Shri R.K. Mehto refused said promotion twice
submitting application dated 26-8-93 and 1-9-93. His name
was deleted from promotion orders. That 5th vacant post
of canteen supervisor was earmarked for cooks/LDCs filled
by promotion on adhoc basis by Shri S.L.Uike (ST-
category) by virtue of his seniority. When there was
subsequent vacancy, Shri R.K. Mehto was promoted on
adhoc basis from 1-1-97. He is regularized from 24-12-98.
All other adverse allegations of workman are denied by
IInd party. It is submitted that workman is not entitled to
promotion in ST category when S.S. Imna was promoted.
On such ground, IInd party prayed for for rejection of
claim.
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
the management of Security
Paper Mill in not promoting
Shri R. K. Mehto being
senior most is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering
his contentions in Statement of claim. That he is senior to
Shri S.S.Imna who was promoted along with Shri K. S.Thakur
as per order dated 2-1-93 as a canteen supervisor. Prior to
it, Shri K.S.Thakur and Imna were given promotion of
canteen supervisor for six months from 22-12-92 ignoring
his claim for promotion. The workman had submitted
representations against promotion of Shri S.S.Imna, copies
of representations are produced, copies of order of
promotion are produced. Workman was not cross-
examined. His evidence remained unchallenged.
Management did not adduce evidence though case was
repeatedly adjourned. The evidence of workman remained
unchallenged. Management failed to adduce evidence.
Their pleadings cannot be treated as evidence of
management. No evidence is produced that Shri S.S.Imna
belonging to ST category, no evidence is produced about
the roster points rather any documents about promotion
given to Shri S.S.Imna are not produced. The management
in its Written Statement has not disputed the seniority
stated by the workman in Para-4 of the Statement of Claim.
Apparently Shri R. K. Mehto is senior to Shri S.S.Imna,
even Uikey belonging to ST category is senior to Imna,
Uikey was promoted in ST Category. When Shri K.S.Thakur
and Shri Imna were promoted, action of the management
superseding workman is illegal. Therefore I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(l)
Action of the management of Security Paper Mill
in not promoting Shri R.K.Mehto being senior
most is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to consider benefit of
promotion to workman Shri R.K.Mehto from the
date of promotion of his junior Shri S.S.Imna i.e.
from 12-12-1992 and consequential benefits be
allowed to the workman.
P. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1086-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 116@94)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&3&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@135@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 116/94) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of FCI and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
18-3-2014.
[No. L-22012/135/F/1994-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/116/94
Shri R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
Shri Dharamdeep Gajbiye,
S/o Bhaudas Gajbhiye,
C/o. Madu Cycle Store,
Shankarpura,
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2805
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of February, 2014)
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour
vide its Notification No.L-22012/135/F/1994-IR(C-II) dated
29-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
“ Whether the action of the management of Food
Coporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Shri Dharmadeep
Ganbiya, S/o Late Bhaudas Gajbiya, Hamal for
departmentalization and in refusing her employment
w.e.f. 1-4-1992 is lawful and justified ? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. No Dispute Award was passed by my learned
predecessor in the matter on 25-11-99. Application is
submitted by 1st party workman for setting aside no dispute
award dated 25-11-99. He submitted that he could not appear
in the reference proceeding. He had engaged Advocate
Balbir Khanuja. His Advocate was to attend the reference
proceeding but he remained absent. It was not proper to
pass No Dispute Award. He prays for setting aside the
same.
3. IInd party opposed the application of workman
filing detailed reply that the application for restoration was
not registered as MJC. The application is not tenable. That
Central govt. vide order dated 29-7 -94 made reference to
the Tribunal. The workman did not attend the proceeding
after 27 -10-95, exparte order was passed against workman,
no dispute award was passed on 25-11-99. That as per ratio
held by Supreme Court in Bank’s case, the application for
setting aside exparte award should be filed within 30 days
from publication of award. The Award was published on
11-1-2000. The application for setting aside award is filed
on 29-3-2001 after 14 months is not tenable.
4. Workman did not adduce evidence in support of
his application, management filed affidavit of witness Shri
Parth shah on merit of the matter and not on the point of
setting aside the no dispute award. The 1st party workman
has failed to adduce evidence in support of his application.
The application for setting aside no dispute award cannot
be allowed. The application is rejected.
5. In view of No Dispute Award dated 25-11-99, the
reference is closed.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1087-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 101@94)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&3&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@64@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/94)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of WCL and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18-3-2014.
[No. L-22012/64/2004-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUS1RIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/101/94
Shri R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Regional General Secretary,
Lal Jhanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,
PO damua,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
. . . Workman/Union
Versus
The Manager,
Damua Colliery of WCL,
PO Damua, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
. . .Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 26th day of February, 2014)
1. As per letter dated 11-7-94 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-22012/64/04-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates
to :
“Whether the action of the management, Damua
Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd at & PO Damua
(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Mangloo
S/o. Jethu, w.e.f. 9-4-92 is justified? If not, what
2806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relief and emoluments the concerned workman is
entitled ?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/4. The case of workman is that he was
appointed on post of tub loader on 18-5-83 after notification
through Employment Exchange Parasia. He was engaged
on permanent nature of work in the coal mine. That while
returning home on 31-3-94, he fell on well, he suffered
compound fracture in his left hand. He was
admitted in
company hospital. He was also referred by management of
Damua colliery to the hospital. However as he belong to
ST, company hospital did not take his case. The compound
fracture suffered by him was infected. He suffered with
“Gas Gangruns”. He was referred for surgery to Medical
College, Nagpur on 23-6-84. He further submits that he was
denied proper facilities as per NCWA-I to IV. His left hand
was amputated 8 inches from tip of acromion of left hand.
He was rendered handicapped for negligence of the
management. It resulted in stoppage of work. His services
were terminated for false reason of absenteeism.
3. After his discharge from Medical College, Nagpur
when he reported to Kanhan Area Hospital, the Medical
Officer, Medical Suptd. did not take his case, he was not
advised duties. He had submitted representation to General
Manager on 25-10-85. That chargesheet was issued to him
for unauthorized absence. He had denied the charges. The
enquiry was not conducted properly. The Enquiry Officer
shown personal interest out of bias. The chargesheet
issued to him was vague. Specific period of absence was
not stated in chargesheet. After his dismissal from service,
he had raised dispute. On such grounds, workman prays
for setting aside order of his termination dated 4-9-92 enquiry
was completed exparte violating principles of natural
justice.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/3. IInd party did not dispute that the workman was
employed in Damua colliery since 1983 that he had suffered
injury outside employment the injury was not concerned
with the employment. It was totally unconnected with the
employment of workman. That on humanitarian ground,
workman was provided treatment in 1984. After his
treatment, workman was found medically fit. He remained
unauthorisely absent from April 1984. Chargesheet was
issued to him on 24-11-92. Prior to it, chargesheet was also
issued to him on 26-3-90. Before chargesheet was issued
to him, the Union had raised dispute before Conciliation
Officer. On 18-6-92, Desk Officer closed case on ground
that Disciplinary proceeding is administrative function will
not constitute industrial dispute. After closure of the
dispute, chargesheet was issued on 24-11-92. IInd party
submits that enquiry was properly conducted. Workman
did not participated in enquiry despite of intimation given
to him, enquiry is legal and proper. The punishment imposed
against workman is proper. Workman is not entititled to
reinstatement.
5. Union filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2 reiterating
contentions in Statement of Claim. Management filed
rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/2 reiterating contentions in its
Written Statement.
6. Preliminary issue is decided by my predecessor
vide order dated 19-4-12, enquiry is found not legal and
proper. Management was given opportunity to prove
misconduct.
7. Considering pleadings between parties and order
on preliminary issue, 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 charge of
In Negative
unauthorised absence are
proved against workman
from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment
In Negative
of termination from service
imposed on workman is legal
and proper?
(iii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
8. As stated above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found illegal. Management is given opportunity
to prove misconduct of workman. The legal position is
shattered that the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot
be considered. The workman died during pendency. His
widow Jugni Bai is substituted as LR. She has filed affidavit
of her evidence. She has stated that her husband had
suffered injury in left hand. Application was submitted for
declaring him unfit for duty. Her husband died on 4-9-07. In
her cross-examination, she says that her husband was
working in Nandan Mine No.24,25. Her husband had fallen
in well. The well was in backyard of her house. She claims
ignorance about enquiry conducted against her husband.
IInd party filed affidavit of evidence of witness Shri Shyam
Sunder Joshi. The witness of management says that
workman Late Mangloo was employed in Damua colliery
on piece rated basis since 1983. She sustained minor injury
outside employment said injury was not concerned with
employment. It was unconnected with his work. The
workman remained unauthorisely absent from April 84,
chargesheet was issued on 24-11-92 and 26-3-90. The injury
suffered by workman was independent. The treatment was
provided on humanitarian ground. Workman was declared
fit on duty by Medical Officer. In his cross-examination
management witness says that serious patient used to, be
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2807
referred to other hospital. In case patient could not be
cured in Regional Hospital, such patients are referred to
Medical Officer. He admits that deceased workman was
referred to Nagpur for treatment. He claims ignorance
whether his hand was amputated. Two charges were issued
to workman for his unauthorized absence. Workman did
not submit reply, he remained absent.
9. The evidence of management’s witness clearly
shows that workman was referred to Medical Officer,
Nagpur. The evidence of widow of workman is clear that
left hand of her husband was amputated 8 inches below
the joint. The evidence of management’s witness that
workman was found fit by Medical Officer is not supported
by document. When workman had suffered injuries, his
left hand was amputated. Certificate of Medical Officer is
not produced that workman was fit for duty. First
chargesheet was issued after lapse of about 6 years in 1990
and IInd charge-sheet was issued in 1992. The delay in
issuing chargesheet to the workman shows absence on
bonafide on part of management. Delay in issuing
chargesheet after such a long delay is not explained in
evidence by management’s witness. When no evidence is
adduced about fitness of workman to resume duty, the
termination of workman for unauthorized absence appears
not justified. Counsel for management Mr. Shashi during
course of argument, submitted that absence for more than
10 days is a misconduct. The injury suffered by workman
is minor. Documents are not produced about the injuries.
Exhibit W-2 is Medical Certificate issued by Medical Officer
dated 15-10-93 certifying that left hand was amputated 4
inches below joint of workman Mangloo. Fitness certificate
is not produced. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No.l in Negative.
10. Point No. 2—In view of my finding on Point No.l,
management has failed to prove that deceased workman
was unauthorisely absent from duty. Workman died during
pendency of reference in 2007. Therefore there is no
question of his reinstatement with back wages. Learned
counsel for Ist party workman Mr. Verma submits that
workman may be granted all reliefs under NCWA including
appointment of son of deceased on compassionate ground.
Such relief cannot be granted as terms of reference relates
only to legality of termination of workman.
11. Considering the services of 1st party are
terminated, however the charge of unauthorized absence
is not proved, compensation Rs. 2,50,000 would be
appropriate. The benefit of employment of dependents of
deceased workman as per NCWA may be pursued
separately. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
12. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1)
The action of the management, Damua colliery of
Western Coalfields Ltd. at & PO Damua (MP) in
terminating the services of Shri Mangloo S/o Jethu,
w.e.f. 9-4-92 is proper and legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 2,50,0001 to LRs of deceased workman. The
benefit of employment of dependents of deceased
workman as per NCWA may be pursued
separately.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman within six weeks. 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] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1088-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 110@94]
111@94] 112@94] 114@94] 115@94 ,oa 117@94) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@121@@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II),
la- ,y&22012@122@@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II),
la- ,y&22012@123@@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II),
la- ,y&22012@133@@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II),
la- ,y&22012@134@@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II),
la- ,y&22012@136@@,iQ@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/94,
111/94, 112/94, 114/94, 115/94 and 117/94) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
FCI and their workman, received by the Central Government
on 18-3-2014.
[No. L-22012/121/F/1994-IR (C-II),
No. L-22012/122/F/1994-IR (C-II),
No. L-22012/123/F/1994-IR (C-II),
No. L-22012/133/F/1994-IR (C-II),
No. L-22012/134/F/1994-IR (C-II),
No. L-22012/136/F/1994-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
2808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
Shri R. B. Patle, Presiding Officer
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/110/94
Smt. Budhia Bai,
W/o Sukharu Yadav,
Station Para, Ward No. 7,
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/111/94
Smt. Ganeshiya Bai,
W /o Kartik Ram,
Station Para, Gali No. 3,
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/112/94
Smt. Devbati Bai,
W/o Shri Ram Prasad Yadav,
Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 4,
House of Ramdas
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/94
Smt. Pyari Bai,
W/o Late Samlu Yadav,
Station Para, Ward No. 7,
House of Bhurandas
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/115/94
Smt. Sajan Bai,
W/o Late Anand Ram Mahar,
Chikali Ward No. 4,
Near Jaiswal Floor Mill,
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/117/94
Smt. Parwati Bai,
W/o Late Vitthal Mahar.,
Shanti Nagar,
Ward No. 4, Behind School,
House of Ramdas Dhobi
Rajnandgaon
. . . Workman
Versus
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
At & PO Durg (MP)
. . . Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of February, 2014)
1. (a) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour
vide its Notification No. L-22012/121/F/1994-IR(C-II) dated
27-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
“ Whether the action of the management of Food
Coporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Smt. Budhia Bai
W/o Sukharu Yadav, Hamal for departmentalization
and in refusing her employment w.e.f. 1-4-1992 is
lawful and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled ?”
(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour
vide its Notification No.L-22012/122/F/1994-IR(C-II) dated
29-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
“ Whether the action of the management of Food
Coporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Smt. Ganeshiya
Bai W/o Kartik Ram, Hamal for departmentalization
and in refusing her employment w.e.f. 1-4-1992 is
lawful and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?”
(c) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide
its Notification No.L-22012/123/F/1994-IR(C-II) dated
29-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2809
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Smt. Devbati Bai
W/o Ram Prasad Yadav, Hamal for departmentalization
and in refusing her employment w.e.f, 1-4-1992 is
lawful and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled ?”
(d) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour
vide its Notification No.L-22012/133/F/1994-IR(C-II) dated
29-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
“ Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Smt. Pyari Bai W/o
Late Samlu Yadav, Hamal for departmentalization and
in refusing her employment w.e.f. 1-4-1992 is lawful
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled ?”
(e) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide
its Notification No.L-22012/134/F/1994-IR(C-II) dated
29-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
“ Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Smt. Sajan Bai
W/o Late Anand Ram Mahar, Hamal for
departmentalization and in refusing her employment
w.e.f. 1-4-1992 is lawful and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled ?”
(f) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide
its Notification No.L-22012/l36/F/l994-IR(C-II) dated
29-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication
by this tribunal :—
“ Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in relation to their Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including the name of Smt. Parvati Bai
W/o Late Bitthal Mahar, Hamal for departmentalization
and in refusing her employment w.e.f. 1-4-1992 is
lawful and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled ?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman have filed their Statement of
claim in respective references. The Statement of claim filed
by workmen are identical. In R/110/94, workman Budhiya
Bai has contented that she was working for 18 years, in
R/111/94, Smt. Ganesha Bai submits that she was working
in Rajnandgaon Depot for 18 years, R/112/94, workman
Devbati Bai submits that she was working for l3 years, in
R/114/94, workman Pyaribai submits that she was working
for 18 years, R/115/94, workman Sajan Bai has submitted
that she was working for 15 years, in R/117/94 workman
Smt. Parvati Bai has pleaded that she was working for 9
years in Rajnandgaon depot of FCI. That their services
were orally terminated from April - 1992. Termination of
their service is illegal. All those workmen were not served
with any chargesheet, no Departmental Enquiry was
conducted against them, they were not given opportunity
of hearing. Their termination amounts to retrenchment, they
were terminated without notice, the retrenchment
compensation was not paid to them. Termination of their
service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.
3. Workman in R/111/94- Smt. Ganesha Bai, R/112/
94- workman Devbati Bai, in R/114/94- workman Pyaribai
and in R/117/94- Smt. Parvati Bai died during pendency of
reference, their LRs are brought on record.
4. All the Ist party workmen have pleaded that after
their termination from service, Hafiz Khan, Shankar Sahu &
Santosh Sahu are engaged by IInd party in Rajnandgaon
Depot. Workmen were not given opportunity for
employment. IInd party has violated section 25-H of I.D.
Act. That IInd party has discriminated those workmen not
regularizing their services. The termination of their service
is illegal. All the workmen prays for their reinstatement
from 1-4-92 with consequential benefits.
5. IInd party has filed separate Written Statement in
all the cases. Written Statement filed by IInd party in all
cases are identical. The case of the IInd party is that FCI is
a Corporation established by Food Corporation Act, 1964
by Parliament. The corporation is required to deal with
procurement/storage and distribution of food grains
through out the country so as to reach the poorest of the
poor as per the National Policy on distribution of food
grains in the country. The contractors so appointed is paid
for the work done at the prescribed rate per bag. The
contractor is not paid as per the number of the workers
employed by them. That it is entirely looking out of the
contractor to find its labour and get the work done. IInd
party has no disciplinary or administrative control over the
labours employed by the contractor. The nature of work
and quantum of work varies from time to time depending
upon various facts like Govt. Policy, import policy, success
of crops, procurement, target etc.
6. Prior to 1-4-91 i.e. after prohibition of contract
labour, notification issued by the Govt. of India dated
7-9-90 , 11-9-90, the handling work in the depots was carried
by Handling Transport Contractors only. The IInd party
denied that all the workmen were working as its employee
for the period claimed by them. It is denied that those
workmen were employed by FCI. As per IInd party, FCI
used to engage handling contractors for 2 years at
Rajnandgaon godown. Such contractors used to engage
his own labours from open market. Wages used to be paid
by contractor as per schedule of rates. IInd party has given
details of the contractors in 1983 to 1985—Shri Om Prakash
Agrawal, from 1985 to 1986—Shri Girish Kumar, from 1986
2810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to 1988—Shri Pradip Kumar Mirani & from 1988 to
31-3-1991- Universal Transport were engaged as contractors
at Rajnandgaon depot. The 1st party workman never worked
as employees of FCI. There was no question of terminating
their services by the IInd party. It is reiterated that the
workmen were not employees of FCI. There was no
question of issuing show-cause notice or issuing notice to
them by IInd party. IInd party has not terminated their
services. There is no question of violation of Section 25-F
of I.D.Act by IInd party. There was no question of paying
retrenchment compensation. Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour issued notification dated 1-09-90, 11-11-90 in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 10( 1) of Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970. The
employment of contract labour prohibited in godown at
Rajnandgaon Depot of FCI. The FCI workers Union was
pressing for implementation of those notification. On
demand of FCI Workers Union, agreement was signed on
12-4-91 between the management of FCI and the Union for
departmentalization and regularization of labours.
7. It is submitted that in terms of agreement
requirement of handling labours was assessed on the basis
of work done during preceding 3 months, ancillary labours
as per storage capacity of the labours per 5000 metric
tonnes. It was agreed that management shall provide biodata
forks to FCI Union for number of hands to assist would be
filled by workers themselves. The Committee was appointed
for finalizing list to ascertain physical fitness and age of
the labours. The management was to consider such list.
The labours of Food supply Depot, Rajnandgaon have
been regularized from 1-4-91. The handling contract was
terminated, the strength of handling and ancillary labour
was assessed considering the work done during 3
preceding years from 1988 to 1991. The capacity of the
depot as per biodatas submitted by FCI Workers Union. 98
handling and 60 ancillary labours were regularized at
Ranjandgaon Depot of FCI. The identification was
conducted by FCI management. The names of 1st party
workers were not appearing in the said list. Therefore there
was no question of regularizing their services. On such
ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim of the
workmen.
8. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the action of
In Negative
the management of FCI in
relation to Rajnandgaon
Depot in not including
names of workmen
Smt. Budhia Bai in R/110/94,
Smt. Ganeshiya Bai in
R/111/94, Smt. Devbati
Bai in R/112/94,
Smt. Pyari Bai in R/1l4/94,
Smt. Sajan Bai in R/l15/94
& Smt. Parwati Bai in R/117/
94 for departmentalization
and refusing employment to
them w.e.f. 1-4-97 is legal ?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
As per Final Order
workman is entitled to ?”
REASONS
9. 1st party workmen in above references are claiming
that they are illegally denied regularization/
departmentalization, their services are illegally discontinued
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. that other employees
are engaged by IInd party management. 1st party workmen
are not given opportunity of re-employment in violation of
Section 25-H of I.D.Act. The above material contentions of
workmen is denied by the management. The management
is contending that there is no employer employee
relationship. Ilnd party management was engaging
contractors and contractor was to engage workman for
fulfilling the work as per contract. 1st party workman in R/
110/94 Budhia Bai filed her affidavit of evidence stating
that she was working for 19 year in FCI Depot, Rajnandgaon.
She was doing work of filling, sticking the grain bags,
cleaning the depot, she was illegally discontinued from
April 1992 without notice, retrenchment is not paid. She
has completed 240 days continuous service during each of
the year but she is un-employed. Affidavit of Binda Om
Prakash is filed supporting claim of workman. That workman
was working in FC I, Rajnandgaon depot, her service were
discontinued without notice. Identical affidavit are filed in
R/111/94 of Legal heir Sakun Bai and witness Binda Bai, in
R/112/94 affidavit of Devbati Bai, witness Binda Bai, in
R/114/94 affidavit is filed of Rasmat Bai and witness Binda
Bai, in R/115/94 affidavit is filed of Sajan Bai and witness
Binda Bai, in R/117/94 affidavit is filed of Valindra, LR of
deceased Parvati Bai and witness Binda Bai. Affidavit filed
in all the matters are identical. That 1st party workmen were
working in FCI continuously working for the period stated
in the affidavit as employees of the FCI, their services were
terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was
not paid.
10.Workman Smt. Budhia Bai in R/110/94 was not
cross-examined as she died during pendency of the
reference. Witness Binda Bai in her cross-examination says
that she is hard of hearing, her vision is week, she was
unable to tell her date of birth. She has one brother, she
was unable to tell his date of birth, age of witness is 70
years. She claimed ignorance when the workman was
engaged in FCI Depot. She denied that prior to 1990, the
FCI was engaging contractors, she claimed ignorance
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2811
about the agreement about the agreement between FCI
workers Union and the management. That her affidavit is
adopted by the Advocate. She was not collecting the
contents in her affidavit.
11. In R/111/94, LR of deceased workman in her cross-
examination says her mother died 3 months before. Her
evidence was recorded on 25-9-01, age of her mother was
70 years. That she had married 9 years before. She was
residing separately from her mother. That her mother was
not working under contractor. Binda Bai in her cross-
examination says that she was working in FCI godown
between 1993 to 1994- l0 AM to 5 PM. She was doing work
of cleaning godown. She was paid weekly wages. That she
had no documents about employees regularized by Ilnd
party. Devbati Bai workman in R/112/94 was not subjected
to cross-examination. The evidence in cross-examination
of witness Binda Bai shows that Devbati Bai workman
died 6-7 years before recording of her evidence on
22-2-2011. In R/I14/95, workman Rasmat Bai says she is
only LR of her mother. She is married, she is working as
labour. She was separately residing from her mother and
working as labour. That age of her mother at time of her
death was about 60 years. Witness Binda Bai in her cross-
examination says Pyari Bai died 4-5 years before. In R/1l5/
94, workman Sajan Bai has stated that she was working for
19 years in Rajnandgaon Depot. Her services were
terminated without notice in April 1992. She has completed
240 days continuous service during each of the year. In
her cross-examination workman was unable to tell her date
of birth. She was also unable to tell date of birth of her
brother. That she had one son and daughter. They are also
placed with the child. She was unable to tell her age saying
that her hairs were white. She claims ignorance that prior to
1990, FCI was engaging contractor for the work. She denies
to have work under contractor. That 98 Hammals and 60
Rejas are regularized in Rajnandgaon Depot. Witness Binda
Bai in her cross-examination says that Sajan Bai was working
since prior to her. She was discontinued in 1992. Sajan Bai
was working on daily wages. Weekly wages were paid to
them. In R/117/94, Valindra in her cross-examination says
that her mother died 1 year before. She was married 11
years back, her son is of 17 year of age. Her mother died in
age of 60 years. The evidence of witness is recorded on
25-9-01. Witness Binda Bai in her cross-examination Parvati
Bai died 8-9 years before leaving son and daughter. She
claims ignorance what her son and daughter are doing.
To be precise, workmen were working in FCI is challenged.
All the workmen and their LRs however denied that
workmen were working under contractors.
12.1st party workmen have not produced any
document that they were working under Ilnd party FCI.
13.Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri
B.L.Parte in all the cases. However said witness was not
produced for cross-examination. Management then filed
affidavit of its witness Parth Shah. The management’s
witness in his affidavit of evidence has stated that FCI was
engaging periodical contractors for 2 years, work of
handling food grains. The contractor was engaging
labours. The workmen were not engaged by the FCI. Their
services were not terminated by FCI. That names of different
contractors are shown in para-5 of the affidavit. In 1983 to
1985—Shri Om Prakash Agrawal, from 1985 to 1986- Shri
Girish Kumar, from 1986 to 1988 - Shri Pradip Kumar Mirani
& from 1988 to 31-3-1991—Universal Transport were
engaged for handling and transport work at Rajnandgaon
depot. As per agreement between IInd party and FCI
Workers Union dated 14-4-91, the list of employees was
submitted that 98 employees were regularized for handling
and 60 employees regularized for ancillary work. Said
witness in cross-examined in R/114/94 and his cross-
examination is adopted in other references. Management’s
witness Parth in his cross-examination says after
discontinuing contract system, some employees were
regularized. Guidelines were prepared for regularization of
contract labours. He had seen list of the employees
regularized. He was not sure whether the documents seen
by him were produced on record. The witness shown his
readiness to produce the list and documents. During 1981
to 85, contractor was paying minimum wages or not, the
witness was not sure his labours were engaged by the
contractor. Mr. Hafiz Khan, Shankar Sahu & Santosh Sahu
were not contractor’s labours. He claims ignorance whether
their services were regularized by IInd party. Witness denies
suggestion that he deliberately deposed falsely for
awarding claim of the workman.
14.Written notes of argument is submitted by
counsel for IInd party reiterating contentions of the IInd
party in their Written Statement. IInd party has produced
documents copies of agreement between management of
FCI and workers Union dated 12-4-91. The list of employees
regularized is also produced in all the references.
Clause 3(a) of the Agreement provides- the strength
of the labour force in each godown shall be arrived at by
taking into account the per capita output of 90 bags per
worker per day on the basis of average out turn in all
operations per year during the preceding three years. The
Union shall also be associated in the assessment. A
provision for leave reserve and weekly off etc. would be
kept at 27% of the approved strength. In case of siding
godowns there will be additional 10%.
Clause 3(b) provides in addition to the aforesaid
assessment of manpower, additional hands as ancillary
labour shall also be employed as per the work load and
capacity 4 Ancillary labour for 5000 MT capacity.
Clause 3(c)—the management shall provide biodata
forms to the Union for the number of hands so assessed
which would be filled in by the workers and furnished by
the Union to the management. The biodata so furnished
will be jointly examined by the management and the Union.
2812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The age of the workmen whereafter the management shall
issue identity cards to the workers concerned.”
The terms of the agreement clearly shows for
regularization of labours working with contractors, the list
was to be finalized with the help of the Union, 98 employees
and 60 ancillary workers were regularized. The names of all
those workmen are not appearing in it. The evidence of
management’s witness is not disclosing reasons why the
Ist party workmen were not regularized, why their name
were not included in the list of employees submitted for
regularization. Any office bearer of the Union is not
examined why the names of workmen were not included in
the list. The evidence on record doesnot show reason why
regularization as per the agreement was denied to the
workman. As per agreement workmen were entitled for
regularization. All those workmen were denied benefit of
the agreement. The workmen were rather discontinued from
work without paying retrenchment compensation, no notice
was issued to them. Therefore the action of the IInd party
is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Negative.
15.Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No.l,
action of the management not regularizing services of
workmen and terminating their services were discontinued
is illegal, question arises whether workmen are entitled for
reinstatement with back wages. The evidence on record
shows workmen have attained age of superannuation long
time, some of the workmen died as discussed above, their
LRs are brought on record. The reinstatement of workmen
is not possible. Ist party workmen were denied
regularization as per agreement dated 12-4-91 between
management and the Union, they were not paid retrenchment
compensation. Notice under Section 25-F was not issued
to them. Considering facts and evidence on record, in my
considered view, reasonable compensation would be
appropriate relief. In my considered view, compensation
Rs. 50,000 to the Ist party workman in R/110/94, R/111/94,
R/112/94, R/114/94, R/115/94 & R/117/94 would be
appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 2.
16. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1)
Action of the IInd party management not
regularizing service of Ist party workmen as per
agreement dated 12-4-97 between management
and Union is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 50,000 to the workmen/LRs in R/110/94,
R/111/94, R/112/94, R/114/94, R/115/94 & R/117/94.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
Copy of the award be kept in record of respective reference
cases.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1089-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l lhlh
,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 106@2009)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&3&2014 dks
izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/
2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the the management of M/s.
Singareni Collieries Company Limited, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 18-3-2014.
[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of December, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 106/2009
BETWEEN :
Sri Nagapuri Venkateswarlu,
S/o Rajaiah,
C/o P. Basavaiah,
Advocate,
Flat No. 401, Maruthi Homes,
Old Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet,
Hyderabad.
. . . Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager (Personnel),
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem.
2.
The Dy.General Manager (Personnel),
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Adilabad.
3.
The Dy. General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RK /1A Incline, Mandamarri Area,
Adilabad District.
. . . Respondents
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2813
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana, K.
Vasudeva Reddy & B.
Kiran Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent :
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
Sri Nagapuri Venkateswarlu, the Petitioner who
worked as Badli Filler in the Respondent’s organization
has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for re-appointment as Badli
Filler.
2. Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler in
the year 1992 under NCWA under dependent employment
scheme and he was removed from service w.e.f. 30.9.2001
for unauthorized absenteeism. Petitioner was rendered
without employment and had become jobless from
1.10.2001. Hence, he filed the present petition seeking for
re-appointment as Badli Filler, considering the
circumstances because of which the Petitioner was short
of 3 musters in fulfilling the condition of 190 musters during
the trial period and pass such other orders in the
circumstances of the case.
3. The Respondents filed counter stating that the
appointment of the Petitioner is governed by specified terms
and conditions and the primary responsibility of the
Respondent is to follow the same. As the terms of
appointment the Petitioner had to put in 190 “Actual
Musters” during the 12 months trial period. Actual Muster
means, presenting oneself at the unit and under take work
and this does not include any leave, sick, absence etc. As
such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Case stands posted for evidence of Petitioner.
Petitioner called absent and there is no representation for
him since long time. Inspite of giving fair opportunity again
and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the
proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner is
not interested in the proceedings, a ‘Nil’ award is passed.
Proceedings closed.
Award passed accordingly Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 27th
day of December, 20l3.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1090-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
106@1996) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@532@1995&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/
1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18-3-2014.
[No. L-22012/532/1995-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
Reference No. 106/1996
In the matter of reference U/s. 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Employer in relation to the management of Food
Corporation of India, Patna.
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT :
Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
:
Sri R. L. Meena, Sr.
Manager
For the workman
:
None
State : Bihar
Industry : Food
2814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated 25th February, 2014
AWARD
By order No. L-22012/532/95/IR (C-II) dated
6-11-1996, 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, 947 referred the following dispute
for adjudicaion to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Patna in terminating the services
of Shri Sukhdeo Sah, Yogendra Mehta, and Smt.
Yogeshwari Devi in the grade they were working is
legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to ?”
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] 18 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1091-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
88@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&3&2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@168@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014
S.O. 1091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 18-3-2014.
[No. L-22012/168/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 88/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Paramjit Singh, S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, R/o Ganna Pind,
Tehsil Phillaru, District Jalandhar .... Petitioner
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corration of India,
District Office, Jalandhar.
. . . Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. Maninder Arora Adv.
For the Management : Sh. Parminder Singh Adv.
AWARD
(Passed on 10.2.2014)
1. Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/
168/2004-IR(CM-II)) Dated 30.3.2005, by exercising its
powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and
Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, District Office, Jalandhar, in
dismissing Sh. Paramjit Singh, S/o Sh. Munshi Ram,
from service w.e.f. 19.12.2002 retrospectively vide
their order dated 30.3.2003 is legal and justified ? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to and from which date ?”
In response to the notice the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim pleading that he was working
as casual labourer for two years prior to 1.1.1995 and on
the basis of the length of service, he was employed as a
regular worker w.ef. 1.1.1995 “Gang No.15”, as he was
found eligible by three-member Selection Committee. He
was getting Rs.3269 per month from the month of February
2001 and he had drawn the salary up to November 2002. He
was stopped from discharging his duty on 19.12.2002
without intimating him any reason and serving him show
cause notice. That the act of the management is totally
illegal and he is liable to be reinstated in service with all the
benefits.
Respondent. management filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that one Paramjit
Singh S/o. Milkhi Ram worked with the labour contractor
during the year 1993 to 1995 and he left for abroad. When
the Induction Committee visited Phillaur for nominating
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2815
the person, the present workman whose name is Paramjit
Singh S/o. Munshi Ram appeared before the Committee as
Paramjit Singh S/o. Milkhi Ram and got inducted himself
as handling labour. Thus he got the appointment by
impersonating himself in place of Paramjit Singh S/o Milkhi
Ram. That Paramjit Singh S/o Milkhi Ram returned from
abroad and on receipt of his complaint an investigation
was conducted and the AM Depot Phillaur indicated the
bogus induction of the workman and as such his entry was
banned w.e. f. 19.12.1992. That a show cause notice was
given to him to which he submitted reply. After considering
his reply, his services were terminated. That he got
employment by playing a fraud and as such there was no
requirement of any procedure being followed before
dismissing him from service.
It is further pleaded that the workman was arrested
in FIR No. 64 dated 21.8.1993 under Section 15 of the NDPS
Act and was released on bail on 29.10.1993. Again he was
arrested on 23.9.1994 in FIR No.71 registered at Police
Station Mukerian and he was convicted and sentenced for
one year by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge
Hoshiarpur. Thus he did not work for two years prior to
1995 and was not entitled to get the employment.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand the management examined
Sh. Ravinder Matta, who filed his affidavit supporting the
averments as contained in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Maninder Arora, counsel for the
workman and Sh. Parminder Singh, counsel for the
management.
It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for
the management that worker whose name is Paramjit Singh
S/o. ‘Munshi Ram’ got employment by impersonating
himself as Paramjit Singh S/o. ‘Milkhi Ram’ and when the
fraud committed by him was detected, his services were
terminating after serving a show cause notice on him.
The respondent management got registered a case
bearing FIR No.178 dated 21.9.2003 on the basis of the
above said allegations and the learned trial Court framed
the following points for determination as is clear from the
copy of judgement dated 31.3.2011 : —
1.
Whether in the year 1995 accused Paramjit Singh
son of Munshi Ram cheated FCI Department by
inducing the department to get the job in place of
Paramjit Singh son of Milkhi Ram ?
2.
Whether accused forged certain documents i.e.
affidavit with intent to cause damage to FCI
Department ?
3.
Whether the prosecution has been able to prove
its case as alleged by the prosecution ?
After discussing the, evidence, the learned Court
decided all the points against the prosecution meaning
thereby it was not proved that workman Paramjit Singh
S/o. Munshi Ram cheated the respondent department by
inducing it to get a job in place of Paramjit Singh S/o. Milkhi
Ram. This judgment of the learned trial Court clinches the
issue and falsify the version of the management that
workman got the employment by impersonating Paramjit
Singh S/o. Milkhi Ram.
The management did not produce any record when
Induction committee allegedly selected Paramjit Singh
S/o. Milkhi Ram to establish that it was in fact Paramjit
Singh S/o. Milkhi Ram who was inducted as a handling
labour and not the workman whose name is Paramjit Singh
S/o. Munshi Ram. According to the workman there were
two persons of the name of Paramjit Singh working with
the contractor and the management has denied this fact in
its written statement. But Ravinder Matta examined by the
respondent has admitted that there were two persons of
the name of Paramjit Singh S/o Milkhi Ram and Paramjit
Singh S/o. Munshi Ram who were working with the
contractor in the year 1993 and therefore it cannot be said
that the workman appeared before the induction committee
all of a sudden by impersonating himself as Paramjit Singh
S/o Milkhi Ram.
Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel
for the management on the certificates Exhibit M2 and M3
issued by the Superintendent District Jail Jalandhar and
Hoshiarpur showing that workman remained in the jail from
23.8.1993 to 20.10.1993 in Jalandhar and from 23.9.1994 to
1.12.1994 in district Jail Hoshiarpur; and argued when the
workman remained in jail, he was not in a position to
complete 2 years of service prior to 1995. It may be added
that no rules have been placed on the file to show the
criteria for the selection of labour by the induction
committee. Even if the workman remained in custody for
view months, it is for the said committee to see the record
at the time of the selection and now it cannot be said that
the workman was not fulfilling the criteria for employment
as a labourer.
Mr. Ravinder Matta has stated during cross-
examination that the workman applied for the change of
the name of his father from Milkhi Ram to Munshi Ram in
the month of August 1995 which was changed. This fact
again demolishes the case of the respondent management;
and otherwise it would not have corrected the name of the
father of the workman.
No other cogent and convincing evidence has come
on the file except the bare statement of Ravinder Matta
that the workman misrepresented himself as Paramjit Singh
S/o. Milkhi Ram and in the given circumstances, it cannot
be said that the workman impersonated himself to get the
employment; and his services were not liable to be
terminated on the above said ground alone. Therefore his
termination is illegal.
In result it is held that termination of the workman
by respondent management is illegal and unjustified.
2816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The services of the workman was terminated vide
order dated 30.3.2003. It is nowhere pleaded in the statement
of claim that he remained out of service from the date of his
termination nor there is anything on the file in this respect.
Therefore he is not entitled to full back wages. Considering
the totality of the circumstances, he is to be awarded
50 per cent back wages.
In result, the reference is answered holding that the
order of the respondent management dismissing the
workman is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to be
reinstated with continuity of service but he is entitled to
50 per cent of the back wages. The management is directed
to reinstate the workman in service within 1 month from
the publication of the award. The reference is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Let hard and soft copy
of the award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1092-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,pMh,iQlh
ykbiQ ba'kqjUl daiuh fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1
fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 73@2013)dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@3@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&17012@2@2013&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2014
S.O. 1092.—ln pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.73/2013)
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 M/s. HDFC Life Insurance Co.Ltd., New
Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 10/3/2014.
[No. L-17012/2/2013-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,
DELHI
I.D.No.73/2013
Shri Ashok Gupta,
House No.199 L Extension,
Mohan Garden,
New Delhi-110 059
..... Workman
Versus
The Channel Head,
M/s HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ashok Vihar Branch,
New Delhi-110 059
... Management
AWARD
A Sales Development Manager was appointed by
HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short the Insurance
Company) on 20.05.2010. He was to be on probation for a
period of three months, which would be extended if found
necessary by the Insurance Company. Since performance
of the Sales Development Manager was not up to the
expectation of the Insurance Company, his services were
dispensed with on 31.10.2011. Aggrieved by the said act,
he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer. Since the Insurance Company contested his claim,
conciliation proceedings ended into 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-17012/2/2013-IR(M), New Delhi dated 07.02.1996, with
following terms:
"Whether the action on the part of the Insurance
Company of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Delhi in terminating services of Shri Ashok
Gupta, ex-Sales Development manager with effect
from 03.11.2011 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2. Sales Development Manager, namely, Shri Ashok
Gupta filed his claim pleading that he joined the Insurance
Company on 20.05.2010 but appointment letter was issued
on 26.08.2010 after completing 67 days of service. His total
emoluments were Rs. 2,70,000.00 per year, which included
basic, house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, special
allowance, provident fund, hospitalization, medical
reimbursement and leave travel concession. His job profile
was to canvass for business, recruit insurance agents for
the Insurance Company and assist them to close sale, but
had no administrative and supervisory control over them.
Their recruitment forms were submitted to the Branch
Manager/respective Sales Manager, scrutiny is done by
operational department, training was imparted by the
training department and examination was conducted by
the Insurance Requlatory Development Authority. They
do their business independently and receive their
commission and reward in their accounts from the Insurance
Company. Their performance is judged by the Insurance
Company. Information regarding new products or any
change in their commission structure is sent directly to the
agents on their mobile or e-mail provided. No executive or
sales representative reports to him nor was he authorized
to sanction leave, pay salary or get any other work from
them. On 02.11.2011, the Insurance Company forcibly took
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2817
his FLS Book and informed verbally not to mark his
attendance in the system. On 03.11.2011, he was forcibly
prevented from entering the premises of the Insurance
Company. No termination letter was issued. to him. He claims
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. Demurral was made by the Insurance Company
that services of the claimant were terminated in complete
conformity with the contract of his employment, as his
services were not found satisfactory. The claimant was
appointed as a Sales Development Manager, in managerial
capacity on 26.08.2010 with effect from 20.05.2010, on an
annual remuneration of Rs. 2,70,000.00, hence not a
workman. Clause(1) of the appointment letter had
specifically provided that the claimant would be under
probation of three months, which may be extended in case
it is found necessary. It is further provided therein that he
would continue to be on probation unless confirmed in
service by way of written order. However, his services did
not meet standard of work expected by the Insurance
Company during his stint on probation. Hence his services
were terminated vide letter dated 31.10.2011. Since the
claimant had willfully accepted terms and conditions of his
appointment, no case is there to award reinstatement in
service. Claim put forward is liable to be dismissed being
devoid of merits, pleads the Insurance Company.
4. On perusal of pleadings following issues were
settled:
(1) Whether the claimant is a workman within the
meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
(2) Whether termination order dated 31.10.2011 falls
within the exception provided in section 2(oo) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(3) As in terms of reference.
5. After filing of the claim statement, the claimant
failed to put in his appearance on any of the dates fixed
thereafter. Since none appeared on behalf of the claimant,
the Tribunal was constrained to proceed under rule 22 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of
the claimant was closed. The Insurance Company tendered
affidavit of Shri Rajeev Kumar as evidence. Since none
was there for the claimant, hence no opportunity could be
accorded to him to carry out his cross examination. No
other evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company.
6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S.S. Tornar,
authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf
of the Insurance Company. None came forward to raise
submissions on behalf of the claimant. I have given my
careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the
bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on
issues involved in the controversy are as follows:—
Issue No.1
Onus was there on the claimant to establish that he
was a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act). Instead of
discharging onus resting on him, the claimant abandoned
the proceedings and opted not to adduce any evidence.
On the other hand, it is claimed on behalf of the Insurance
Company that the claimant is not a workman in terms of
section 2(s) of the Act, since he was drawing monthly salary
exceeding Rs.1600.00 per month and entrusted with duties
of supervision of work of insurance agents, engaged to
promote sale of insurance policies. In order to appreciate
facts, it would be expedient to consider definition of the
term 'workman'. The term "workman" has been defined by
section 2(s) of the Act, which definition is reproduced thus :
"(s)Workman means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but does not include any such person -
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of
1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957),
or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an
officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)
who is, employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity, or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,
draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the
nature of the duties attached to the office or by
reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature;
5. The first part of the definition gives statutory
meaning of the term workman. This part of the definition
determines a workman by reference to a person (including
an apprentice) employed in an “industry” to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines
what a "workman" means. The second part is designed to
include something more in what the term primarily denotes.
2818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
By this part of the definition, person (i) who have been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an
industrial dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the
purposes of any proceedings under the Act in relation to
such industrial dispute, have been included in the definition
of "workman". This part gives extended connotation to
the expression "workman". The third part specifically
excludes the categories of persons specified in clauses (i)
to (iv) of this sub section. The third part connotes that
even if a person satisfies the requirements of any of the
first two parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in
the third part, he shall be excluded from the definition of
'workman'. Not only the persons who are actually employed
in an industry but also those who have been discharged,
dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a
consequence of an industrial dispute, and whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, would
fall within the ambit of the definition. In other words, the
second category of persons included in the definition would
fall in the ambit of the definition, only for the purpose of
any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial
dispute and for no other purposes. Therefore, date of
reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the
definition of workman on that day, the Tribunal would be
vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction
would not cease merely because subsequently the
workman ceases to be workman.
6. For an employee in an industry to be a workman
under this definition, it is manifest that he must be employed
to do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work,
technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an
employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a
workman. The specification of the four types of work
obviously is intended to law down that an employee is to
become a workman only if he is employed to do work of
one of those types, while there may be employees who,
not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the
word 'workman', without having resort to the exceptions. It
cannot be held that every employee of an industry was to
be a workman except those mentioned in the four exceptions
as in that case these four classifications need not have
been mentioned in the definition and a workman could
have been defined as a person employed in an industry
except in cases where he was covered by anyone of the
exceptions.
7. In cases where an employee is employed to do
purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory
work or technical work or clerical work there would be no
difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the
appropriate classification. Frequently, however, an
employee is required to do more than one kind of work. In
such cases, it would be necessary to determine under which
classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out
whether he does not go out of the definition of 'workman'
under the exceptions. The principle is now well settled
that, for this purpose, a workman must be held to be
employed to do that work which is the main work he is
required to do even though he may incidentally doing other
type of work.
8. The words 'managerial or administrative capacity'
have not been defined in the Act, therefore have to be
interpreted in their ordinary sense. In an establishment, a
person may be in a managerial capacity or administrative, if
the work assigned to him require a degree of initiative
command and control which are usually associated with
the position of managerial or administrative capacity. In
deciding such a question, one has to consider the functions
and duties assigned to the person. Several tests, laid down
by the Apex Court in Prem Sagar [1964(1) LLJ 47] for deciding
the question as to whether a person is employed in
managerial capacity, are as follows:—
"It is difficult to lay down exhaustively all the tests
which can be reasonably applied in deciding this
question as several considerations would naturally
be relevant in dealing with this problem. It may be
inquired whether the person had a power to operate
on the bank account or could he make payments to
third parties and enter into agreements with them on
behalf of the employers, was he entitled to represent
the employer to the world at large in regard to the
dealings of the employer with strangers, did he have
authority to supervise the work of the clerks
employed in the establishment, did he have control
and charge of the correspondence, could he make
commitments on behalf of the employer, could he
grant leave to the members of the staff and hold
disciplinary proceedings against them, has he power
to appoint members of the staff or punish them: these
and similar other tests may be usefully applied in
determining the question about the status of an
employee ... "
9. Operation of bank account, controlling of staff,
carrying on correspondence, disbursing salary and
convening meetings, were held to be managerial jobs in
Sunil Kumar Ghosh [1978 (37) FLR 247]. The mere fact that
the employee was designated as a manager or that he
represented the Insurance Company in prior adjudication
proceedings cannot by itself prove that he was performing
'managerial duties' within the meaning of section 2(s)(ii) or
2(s)(iii) of the Act. Reliance can be placed on precedent
P.A.S. Press [1960 (1) LLJ 792]. For determination of such a
question, no abstract or rigid formula can be employed.
His main and substantial work is to be looked into.
Reference can be made to precedent in the Insurance
Company of Scindia Potteries [1974 (29) FLR 325]. In order
to take an employee out of definition of 'workman', it is
necessary to show that he is employed, in fact and in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2819
substance, mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.
See Syndicate Bank Ltd. [1966 (11) LLJ 194] and Ved Prakash
Gupta (1984 Lab. I.C. 658).
10. Merely performing some supervisory duties will
not take out an employee out of the ambit of definition of
workman. The word 'supervision' means to oversee or to
look after. Supervision which is relevant in this connection
is the supervision done by an employee in a higher position
over the employees in the lower position. Supervision may
be in relation to the work or in relation to the person. The
word 'supervisory' as used in section 2(s) of the Act does
not relate to supervision of an automatic plant. Many
machines run automatically on power. They do not have to
be run by human energy. Their running and functioning
has to be watched and repaired if anything goes wrong. A
person who attends to such machines may either do
technical or manual work within the meaning of section
2(s) of the Act. But he does not do supervisory work merely
because he looks after the machine. The essence of
supervisory nature of work under section 2(s) of the Act is
the supervision by one person over the work of another.
See Blue Star Ltd. [1975 (31) FLR 102].
11. A person can be said to be a supervisor if there
are persons working under him, over whose work he has to
keep a watch. In other words, he is that person who
examines and keeps a watch over the work of his
subordinates and if they err in any way, corrects them. It is
his duty to see that the work in any industrial unit is done
in accordance with the manual, if there is one, or in
accordance with the usual procedure. It is not his function
to bring about any innovation. It is not his function to take
any managerial decision but it is his duty to see that the
persons over whom he is supposed to supervise the work
assigned to them, they work according to rules and
regulations. The central concept of supervision is the fact
that there are certain persons working under him. The
essence of supervisory work is the supervision by one
person over the work of others. For exercising supervisory
powers, it may often be necessary that the supervisor
himself must have technical expertise, otherwise he may
not be in a position to exercise proper supervision of the
workmen handling sophisticated plants and machines. A
supervisor need not be a manager or an administrator. He
can be a workman so long as he does not exceed the wage
limit of Rs.1600.00 per month and irrespective of his salary,
is not a workman who is to discharge functions mainly of
managerial nature by reason of the duties attached to his
office or powers vested in him.
12. A person cannot be said to be working in a
supervisory capacity merely because he used to supervise
a person who helps him in doing the work, which he himself
is to perform. For instance, a clerk who has been given the
asistance of the peon cannot be said to be working in a
supervisory capacity. When one talks of a person working
as supervisor, one understands it to mean a person who is
watching the work being done by others to see that it is
being done properly. See Mathur Aviation [1977 (II) LLJ
225]. Thus in determining the status of an employee, his
designation is not decisive. What determines the status is
the consideration of the nature of his duties and functions
assigned to him. A supervisor should occupy a position of
command or decision and should be authorised to act in
certain matters within the limits of his authority without
the sanction of the manager or other supervisors. In the
absence of precise and positive evidence to prove the exact
nature of work which the employee was performing, it
cannot be held that he was doing administrative or
supervisory work.
13. When efforts are made to appreciate facts on
above lines, it came to light that in appointment letter,
designation of the claimant has been mentioned as Sales
Development Manager. Shri Rajeev Kumar unfolds in his
affidavit, that the claimant was to canvass for business of
the Insurance Company by promoting sale of insurance
polices which inter-alia included overseeing and
supervision of the work of insurance agents engaged by
the Insurance Company for facilitating promotion of sale
of insurance policies. However, his appointment letter does
not detail that the claimant. was to supervise work of
insurance agents engaged by him for facilitating promotion
of sale of insurance policies. Shri Kumar nowhere unfolds
as to how many agents were engaged by the claimant.
When there is a vacuum of evidence on the count as to
how many persons were working under the claimant, it
cannot be concluded that the claimant was employed in a
higher position and there were persons under him, whose
work he was to supervise. His designation seems to be
decorative. Test for determination of managerial or
supervisory capacity are not satisfied in the present
controversy. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the
claimant was not a workman. Issue is, therefore, answered
in favour of the claimant and against the Insurance
Company.
Issue No.2
14. Shri Rajeev Kumar unfolds in his affidavit,
tendered as evidence, that the claimant was appointed as
Sales Development Manager with effect from 20.05.2010,
vide appointment letter dated 26.08.2010. Clause (1) of his
appointment letter specifically provides that he would be
under probation for a period of three months, which may
2820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
be extended in case it is found necessary. It was further
stated therein that the claimant would continue to remain
on probation unless he is confirmed in writing. Shri Kumar
declares that services rendered by the claimant were not
up to the expectation of the Insurance Company. His
services were not confirmed till it came to an end on
31.10.2011. He declares that services of the claimant were
dispensed in accordance with the terms of service,
contained in Clause (1) of his appointment letter.
15. As unfolded by Shri Rajeev Kumar, claimant
rendered service to the Insurance Company, which were
held not to be satisfactory. He was on probation for a period
of' three months, which probation was extended. His
services were not confirmed. On the other hand, it were
dispensed with in consonance with Clause (1) of his
appointment letter dated 26.08.2010. Question for
consideration would be as to whether claimant would be
deemed to have been confirmed in service on expiry of
period of three months. A probationer does not
automatically attain permanent status on expiry of his
probation. If he is neither discharged nor confirmed, he
continues to serve as a probationer until otherwise dealt
with. Therefore, in the absence of anything contained in
the contract to the contrary, nothing would prevent the
employer from extending the period of probation for a
further reasonable period. The purpose of placing a person
on probation is to try him during period of probation to
assess his suitability for the job. If an employee who is on
probation is removed from his service during his period of
probation by order of termination simpliciter, itcannot be
said that the order was stigmatic. The principle of law
relating to discharge under contract and discharge
simpliciter were extended to the discharge of probationer
by the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper Ltd. ( 1964 (I)
LLJ 9). Facts of the case were that a journalist was appointed
on probation for a period of 6 months and was to be
confirmed on being found suitable for the job. Before the
expiry of period of probation the employer terminated his
services on the ground that his work was not satisfactory.
The journalist Challenged his discharge on the ground
that it was malafide and unfair labor practice on the part of
the employer. The employer pleaded that the journalist was
appointed on probation, hence termination of his service
on account of unsatisfactory work was well within rights.
The Apex Court recognized the right of the employer to
terminate service of a probationer at the end of the period
of probation. The observations made by the Apex Courts
are extracted thus:
"there can, in our opinion be no doubt about the
position in law that an employee appointed on
probation for 6 months continues as probationer
even after the period of 6 months if at the end of the
period his services had either not been terminated or
he is confirmed. It appears clear to us that without
anything more an appointment on probation for 6
months give the employer no right to terminate the
service of an employee before 6 months had expired
except on the ground of misconduct or other
sufficient reasons in which case even the service of
a permanent employee could be terminated at the
end of the 6 months period the employer can either
confirm him or terminate his services because his
performance is, found unsatisfactory. If no action is
taken by the employer either by way of confirmation
or by way of termination the employee continues to
be in service as a probationer".
16. The distinction was maintained by the Apex Court
between cases of termination of employment of a
probationer before period of probation had expired and the
cases where the employer exercise his inherent right either
to confirm or to terminate the employment of the probationer
at the end of the period of probation. When an employee
appointed on probation for a specific period is allowed to
continue in the post after the expiry of that period without
any specific order of confirmation, he continues in his post
as a probationer only and acquires no substantive right to
the post in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary
in the original order of appointment or service rules. When
an employee is allowed to continue after end of period of
probation, necessary implication would follow that his
period of probation has been extended and it cannot be
concluded that he should be deemed to have been
confirmed. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in
Dharam Singh (AIR 1968 SC 1210). Consequently it is clear
that an express order of confirmation is necessary to give
an employee substantive right to the post and from the
mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the
end of period of probation, it is not possible to hold that he
should be deemed to have been confirmed. In unit Trust of
India (1993 (I) LLJ 240) the Apex Court announced that the
vary purpose of putting a person on probation is to watch
his performance.
17. Whether assessment made by the employer about
suitability of the employee can be weighed by an Industrial
Adjudicator? It is a settled proposition that assessment to
the effect that service of a probationer is satisfactory or
not rests with the satisfaction of the employer. Such
satisfaction could be objectively assessed and employer
is not bound to give any reason when he does not confirm
a probationer on expiry of the period of probation. However
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2821
the industrial adjudication may call upon the employer to
put reason for not confirming an employee when he finds
the order laced with malafide. In Upkar Machinery Ltd.,
(1996 (1) LLJ 398) the Apex Court ruled that when validity
of termination of services, during period of probation
without notice and without assigning any reason, is under
challenge in that situation Industrial Adjudicator would be
competent to find out whether the order of termination was
bonafide exercise of power conferred by the contract. In
Brook Bond India (Pvt.) Ltd., (1993 (11) LLJ 454) workman
was appointed in the first instance for a period of six
months, extendable for a further period of three months or
more in absolute discretion of the employer. The terms of
appointment further provided that the employer had a right
to terminate the services of a probationer, "during the period
of probation or extended period of probation or before
confirmation in writing, without notice and without
assigning reasons whatsoever." Service was terminated
within the period of probation. During the course of
adjudication the employer adduced no evidence to show
that the work of probationer was unsatisfactory. The Apex
Court ruled that the order of terminating the service· of a
probationer was capricious and unreasonable. The
termination was held to be not justified. The above
precedents make it is clear that an Industrial Adjudicator
has a right to see whether the order of termination is
malafide or whether it amounts to victimization or unfair
labour practice.
18. Shri Rajeev Kumar projects that the work
performed by the claimant was not up to the mark, hence
his period of probation was extended. Claimant has not
come forward to adduce evidence to point out that
assessment of his work, made by the Insurance Company,
was arbitrary and violative of established procedure. He
had not adduced any evidence to point out that his work
was in consonance with norms of assessment of work of
an employee) working with the Insurance Company. No
counter has been made to the evidence adduced by Shri
Rajeev Kumar wherein claim has been made that the work
performed by the claimant was not up to the, expectation
of the Insurance Company. An unassailed testimony of
Shri Rajeev Kumar is accepted to be true. Resultantly, I am
constrained to conclude that the work performed by the
claimant was not up to the mark, which led the Insurance
Company to extend his period of probation. Admittedly, no
order in writing was issued confirming services of ·the
claimant. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant was a
probationer when his services were dispensed with by the
Insurance Company.
19. Whether dispensing with the services of the
claimant, while being on probation, amount to
retrenchment? For an answer to this proposition, definition
of the term is to be construed. Clause (oo) of section 2 of
the Act defines retrenchment. For the sake of convenience,
the said definition is extracted thus:
"(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the
employer of the services of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted
by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age
of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman
concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
or
(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a
result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the
workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in
that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the services of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health".
20. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in
two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down
that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a
workman by the employer "for any reason whatsoever"
otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself
excludes the termination of service, as a measure of
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from
the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes
(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement of
workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)
termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-
renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of
contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained
in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)
termination of service on the ground of continued ill health
of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents
in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979
(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (11) LLJ 363].
21. Sub-clause (bb) purports to exclude from the ambit
of the definition of retrenchment (i) termination of the
service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the
contract of employment between the employer and the
workman concerned, on its expiry, or (ii) termination of the
contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained
in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part
relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of
2822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
non-renewal of the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. Thus
"non-renewal of contract of employment" pre-supposes
an existing contract of employment, which is not renewed.
When services of an employee is terminated on account of
non-renewal of contract of employment, between the
employer and the workman, it does not amount to
retrenchment. The second part refers to "such contract"
being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained
therein. The cases contemplated, under this part too, would
not amount to retrenchment. However this sub-clause,
being in the nature of an exception to clause (oo) of section
2 of the Act, is ruled to be construed strictly when
contractual agreement is used as modus operandi to
frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or
permanent against a job, The adjudicator has to address
himself to the question whether the period of employment
was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device
to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment.
See Shailendra Nath Shukla (1987 Lab. I.C. 1607), Dilip
Hanumantrao Shrike (1990 Lab. I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh
(1990 (1) LLJ. 443). On review of law laid by the Apex Court
and various High Courts, a single Judge of the Madhya
Pradesh High Cour in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari
Sangh (1996 Lab. I.C. 1161) has laid following principles of
interpretation and application of sub-clause (bb) of clause
(00) of section 2 of the Act:
"(i)
that the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) are to be
construed benevolently in favour of the workman,
(ii)
that if the workman is allowed to continue in
service by making periodic appointments from time
to time, then it can be said that the case would not
fall under section 2(oo)(bb),
(iii)
that the provisions of section 2 (oo)(bb) are not
to be interpreted in the manner which may stifle
the main provision,
(iv)
that if the workman continues in service, the non-
renewal of the contract can be deemed as mala
fide and it may amount to be a fraud on statute;
(v)
that there would be wrong presumption of non-
applicability of section 2(oo)(bb) where the work
is of continuous nature and there is nothing on
record that the work for which a workman has
bee.n appointed had come to an end".
22.Whether provisions of retrenchment, enacted in
the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer lies in
negative. Provisions of retrenchment . provide for certain
benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service,
falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment. On
compliance of the requirements of Section 25F or 25N and
25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a
workman.
23. Termination of service of an employee during the
period of probation was held to be covered by the exception
contained in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, in
C.M.Venugopal (1994 (1) LLJ 597). As per fact of the case,
Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
(Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered the Corporation to
terminate the service of an employee within the period of
probation. The employee was put on probation for a period
of one year, which was extended by another year. Since he
could not achieve the target to earn confirmation, his service
was terminated in terms of Regulation 14 as well as order of
appointment. The Apex Court ruled that the case was
covered by the exception contained in sub-clause (bb),
hence it was not retrenchment.
24. As unfolded by Shri Rajiv Kumar, services of the
claimants were dispensed with pursuant to Clause (1) of
his appointment letter dated 26.08.2010. Clause (1) of, his
appointment letter stipulates as follows:
'You will be on probation for a period of three months,
which may be extended in case it is found necessary.
During the probationary period, your engagement
will be subject to termination at any time by either
party, without notice and without any reasons
whatsoever. You will continue to be on probation
unless you are specifically confirmed in writing.'
25. Above stipulation in Clause (1) of the
appointment letter makes it apparent that services of the
claimant could be dispensed with without notice and
without any reasons whatsoever. Clause (1) was used by
the Insurance Company when services of the claimant were
dispensed with. Act of the Insurance Company falls within
the exception contained in sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo)
of section 2 of the Act and does not amount to
retrenchment. Evidently, the Insurance Company has been
able to establish that action taken by it is not retrenchment
within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Act. Issue is,
therefore, answered in favour of the Insurance Company
and against the claimant.
Issue No. 3
26. Since services of the claimant were dispensed
with pursuant to Clause(l) of his appointment letter dated
26.08.2010, action of the Insurance Company is out of the-
purview of definition of retrenchment, provided under
section 2(oo) of the Act. In such a situation, provisions of
section 26F do not come into play. Action of the Insurance
Company is legal and justified. No eyebrows could be
raised against such action, since services of the claimant
have been dispensed with pursuant to contract of his
employment. Claim statement put forth by the claimant is
not maintainable and therefore brushed aside. An award is
passed in favour of the Insurance Company and against
the claimant.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated : January 24, 2014
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2823
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1093-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjiksVZ vFkkWfjVh
vkWiQ bafM;k] ubZ fnYyh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 112@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 17&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&11011@3@2012&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 112/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Airport Authority of India, New
Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 17-3-2014.
[No. L-11011/3/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS
COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 112/2012
The General Secretary,
AAI Mazdoor Sangh,
Flat No.166, DDA-SFS Flats,
Sector-I, Pocket-2, Dwarka,
New Delhi -110075. ...Workman
Versus
The Chairman,
Airport Authority of India,
A Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi-11 0092. ... Management
AWARD
Airport Authority of India Mazdoor Sangh
(hereinafter referred to as the union) lost secret ballot
election for declaration of majority union in the year 2002
and 2007 for grant of recognition by the Airport Authority
(in short the Authority) as sole bargaining agent for entire
body of workmen. It could muster 15 votes in election held
in the year 2002. The union contested election in alliance
with AAI Workers' union in the year 2007 and secured 3271
votes out of 12495 valid votes polled. Thus, the union
remained an unrecognized union for the purpose of raising
policy issues with the Authority. Despite the fact that it
had no right to represent workmen in general, the union
raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer for
constitution of a grievance redressal machinery, in
consonance with provisions of section 9C of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Since dispute raised
by the union was contested by the Authority, 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-11 011/3/2012-
IR(M), New Delhi dated 17.09.2012 with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Airport
Authority of India, New Delhi in not setting up the
Grievance Redressal Committee in terms of Chapter
II-B of Section 9-C of the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 2010 (24 of 2010) is justified on
the ground that the management has already
established 'Grievance Redressal Mechanism and
proposed Grievance Redressal Committee is not
applicable on the ground of Sub- section (8) of
Section 9-C of Chapter II-B when such Grievance
committee established by the management is not in
consonance and to tune vith the Grievance Redressal
Committee to be established in an industrial
establishment employing 20 or more workmen as it
does not have any representation of '‘Workmen"
and such committed is for all (i.e. right from top to
bottom) where as proposed committed under ID
(Amendment) Act, 2010 meant for workmen is justified
or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to
and from which date?"
2. Claim statement was filed by the union pleading
that it is a registered trade union functioning in the
establishment of the Authority. It contested secret ballot
election in the year 2002 and 2007 held to determine
majority status of a union. The union lost those elections.
Next referendum for recognition of majority status of union
would be held shortly.
3. The union projects that Shri Harinder Tiwari, its
General Secretary, works as Supervisor (Technical) at
Regional Headquarters, Northern Region of the Authority.
He raised a dispute over non-constitution of a Grievance
Redressal Machinery by the Authority, in consonance with
provisions of the Act, which dispute was not settled hence
conciliation proceedings failed. The union asserts that the
Authority was constituted under an Act of Parliament and
came into existence on 01.04.1995. The Authority is required
to set up a mutually agreed grievance procedure to ensure
2824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
speedy and full investigation of new grievances leading to
settlements. In model grievance procedure, evolved in the
Indian Labour Conference, there should be a time limit
procedure on resolution for grievances and provisions for
participation of workmen in the Committee prescribed.
Grievance Redressal Mechanism established by the
Authority is not in conformity with model grievance
redressal procedure referred above. The said redressal
mechanism is applicable to all staff and officers of the
Authority. The Authority cannot frame conditions of
service of its employees, in disregard to provisions of law.
The Act requires that grievance redressal mechanism
should be evolved wherein participation of the workmen
should be there. Since there is no such participation of
workmen in Grievance Redressal Mechanism established
by the Authority, it is in violation of the statutory
provisions. The union claims that the Authority may be
commanded to constitute a Grievance Redressal
Machinery in accordance with section 9C of the Act,
wherein representative of workmen may be nominated.
4. Demurral was made by the Authority pleading that
Grievance Redressal Mechanism is available since
15.10.2000, which is in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. Since there is an established grievance redressal
mechanism, provisions of section 9C of the Act are not
applicable to the Authority, as exempted by sub-section
(8) of the said section. Claim put forward by the union is
not maintainable. It is liable to be dismissed, pleads the
Authority .
5. As facts were not in dispute, parties were not
called upon to adduce any evidence.
6. When called upon to advance arguments over the
matter, parties opted to file their written arguments. Union
as well as the Authority presented their written submissions
in the matter. I have given my careful considerations to the
arguments advanced and cautiously perused the record.
My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as
follows:-
7. At the outset the Authority claimed that the union
lost secret ballot elections, conducted for determination of
majority status of the union formed by the employees
working in the Authority. In referendum held in the year
2002 and 2007, the union lost elections. The Airports
Authority Employees Union won elections in the year 2002
and 2007. The said union was declared as a sole bargaining
agent. The Authority granted recognition to it to raise all
issues relating to its general employees. The Authority
had discussed issues relating to general employees and
signed memorandum of understanding with the recognized
union. It has been claimed that the union has no right to
raise policy issues, relating to service conditions of general
employees of the Authority
8. In its claim statement, the union made a candid
admission that in the year 2002 it lost secret ballot election,
conducted to determine majority status of a union, for
grant of recognition as a sole bargaining agent on behalf
of general employees of the Authority. The union further
admits therein that in the year 2007 too it lost referendum
conducted for election of a union as sole bargaining agent
to represent entire body of workmen employed with the
Authority. Out of facts conceded by the union in its claim
statement, it became evident that the union lost elections
twice and could not attain majority status for recognition
as a sole bargaining agent to raise issues relating to service
conditions of entire body of workmen, working in the
establishment of the Authority.
9. Whether the sangh, which is an unrecognized
union, can raise issues of policy, relating to service
conditions of general employees of the Authority? For an
answer to this proposition law laid by the Apex Court in
Food Corporation of India case [1995 (71) FLR 278] is to be
taken note of. In that case Food Corporation of India and
the unions, representing the workmen in the establishment
of Food Corporation of India, have agreed to follow ‘‘secret
ballot system’’ for assessing the representative character
of the trade union. The Apcx Court laid down as to how the
method of secret ballot should be tailore, to yield correct
results. The Court ruled therein that the union/unions
obtaining the highest numbers of votes in the process of
election shall be given recognition by the Food Corporation
of India for a period of five years, from the date of
conferment of the recognition.
10. In All Orissa State Bank Officers case [1999 (1)
DLR 271], Orissa High Court rules that a recognized union,
who has numerical support to represent and to speak on
behalf of all workmen, has a right to represent the entire
body of workmen. An unrecognized union has no right to
represent the entire body of the workmen, but it may speak
for or represent workmen, who are its members individually
or as a group. In case of any conflict between demands of
recognized union and demands of an unrecognized union
the management can accept views of the recognized union
but the management cannot deny or refuse to entertain
any representation from or to enter into any dialogue or
discussion with an unrecognized union in respect of
grievances of any individual workman or a group of
workmen belonging to the unrecognized union. Relying
on the precedent in Balmer Lawrie Workers Union (AIR
1985 SC 311) the High Court ruled that acceptance of a
demand on discussion over a demand is not the one and
the same thing. Right of raising grievance and discussion
is a fundamental right, which cannot be taken away totally.
The High Court noted observation of the Apex Court in the
precedent, referred above, with profit, which observations
are extracted thus:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2825
‘‘....Forming an Association is entirely independent
different from its recognition. Recognition of a union
confers rights, duties and obligations. Non-
conferring of such rights, duties and obligations on
a union other than the recognized union does not
put it in an inferior position nor the charge of
discrimination can be entertained. The members of a
non-recognised association can fully enjoy their
fundamental freedom of speech and expression as
also to form the association.
The Legislature has in fact taken note of the
existing phenomenon in trade unions where there
would be unions claiming to represent workmen in
an undertaking or industry other than recognized
union. Section 22 of 1971 Act confers some specific
rights on such non- recognised unions, one such
being the right to meet and discuss with the employer
the grievances of individual workman. The
Legislature has made a clear distinction between
individual dispute affecting all or a large number of
workmen. In the case of even an unrecognized union
it enjoys the statutory right to meet and discuss the
grievance of an individual workman with the
employer. It also enjoys the statutory right to appear
and participate in a domestic or departmental enquiry
in which its member is involved. This is statutory
recognition of an u .recoqnized union. The exclusion
is partial and the embargo on such unrecoqnized
union or individual workman to represent workmen
is in the larger interest of industry, public interest
and national interest. Such a provision could not be
said to be violative of fundamental freedom
guaranteed under Art. 19(1 )(a) or 19(1 )(c) of the
Constituation."
11. As emerge out of the law laid above, an
unrecognized union is not entitled to be treated at par with
a recognized union. The Authority cannot indulge in any
kind of undue discrimination, to take sides and indulge in
any activity designed to harass or disrupt one union and
to promote another union. It cannot deliberately pursue a
policy designed to create a situation which makes
fundamental right of formation of an association and
freedom of expression nugatory or illusionary. The
Authority has certain discretion in and while exercising
such discretion, it has to act fairly, honestly and in the
interest of the organization, without violating the
fundamental rights and/or other statutory rights of the
employees or the sangh. The Authority should, be careful
to ensure that none of its act amounts to oppression of the
sangh nor its members at the instance or under undue
pressure of the union.
12.
Whether the union has been able to project
that the Authority failed to recognize its statutory rights?
In claim statement put forward by the union, issues relating
to entire body of workmen working in the establishment of
the Authority are raised. The union has not raised an
individual dispute. It has not been asserted in the claim
statement that the union tried to meet and discuss
grievances of an individual workman or group of workmen
working with the Authority. In its claim statement, the union
does not assert a statutory right to appear and participate
in domestic enquiry in which its member(s) is/are involved.
There is an embargo on the union to represent entire body
of workmen working in the establishment of the Authority,
in larger interest of the industry, public interest and national
interest. The union has not been able to project that the
Authority has accorded undue benefit to the recognized
union, recognized as such on the basis of referendum held
in the year 2002 and 2007 respectively. No case has been
brought to the effect that the Authority deliberately pursued
a policy to curtail fundamental right of formation of an
association. No instances have been brought to light to
give an inference that the Authority indulged in any activity
designed to harass or disrupt the union and to promote the
recognized union. The union had failed to establish that
by way of recognition of the Airports Authority Employees
Union as sole bargaining agent for formation of policy for
grant of wage structure and other benefits to general
employees, the Authority has not acted fairly, honestly
and in the interest of the organization. The union could not
project that the Authority has acted in an arbitrary and
unreasonable or unfair manner or exercised power in
colourable manner, when it formulated grievance redressal
mechanism for its employees. Therefore, it is evident that
the union has not been able to project a case to strike
down policy of the Authority, when it formulated grievance
redressal mechanism for its employees, long back in the
year 2000. The union could not point out any statutory
right to raise a dispute, in respect of formation of grievance
redressal mechanism in consonance with the provisions of
the Act. In view of these reasons, I am of the considered
opinion that the union has no right to raise the dispute for
adjudication.
13. How a dispute affecting an employee or a group
of employees can be raised? For an answer provisions of
the Act are to be construed. The appropriate Government,
on being satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended, may refer it to an Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication, enacts clause (d) sub-section (I) of
section 10 of the Act. Therefore, the appropriate Government
has to satisfy that an industrial dispute exists or
apprehended between the workmen and their employer.
Consequently, definition of the word "industrial dispute"
is to be appreciated. Clause (k) of section 2 of the Act
defines the word "industrial dispute" in the following
manner.
"(k) industrial dispute means any dispute or
difference between the employers and employers or
2826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
persons".
14. The definition of the word" industrial
dispute "referred above can be divided into four parts
viz.(i) factum of dispute, (ii) parties to the dispute, viz (a)
employers and employers (b) employers and employees 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) conditions
of labour of any person, and (iv) it should relate to an
"industry".
15. The definition of the word "industrial dispute" is
worded in wide terms and unless it is narrowed by the
meaning given to the word "workman" it would seem to
include all "employers", "all employments" and all
"workmen" whatever nature of the scope of the employment
may be. Therefore except in the case where there can be
dispute between the employer 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 workman, the plural may include
singular on either side, or any permutation of singular, the
mesculine including the feminine. In order, therefore, to
determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a
dispute is an "industrial dispute" or not it must be
determined whether the work an concerned or workmen
sponsoring his case satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of
section 2 of the Act. Here in the case, there is no dispute
that the employers of the group "C" and ‘‘D’’working in
the establishment of the Authority are workmen within the
meaning of clause (s) of section 2 of the Act.
16. 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 (11) 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 adopted
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.
17. 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 DharampalPrem 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 (11) LLJ 256], the Apex Court referred the
precedent in DronaKuchi 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".
18. 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2827
"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].
19. 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:'.
20. 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].
21. Above propositions relate to a dispute affecting
an individual or a group of workmen, who may be members
of the union. However, a dispute relating to rights of entire
body of workmen is placed on different pedestal than a
dispute affecting an individual or a group of workmen,
who may be members of an unrecognized union. As pointed
out above, an unrecognized union has no right to represent
entire body of the workmen. In the dispute under reference,
the union can not raise a dispute relating to its right to
speak for or represent entire body of workmen. It is not a
case, wherein the union wants to have a dialogue in respect
of grievances of any individual workman or a group of
workmen belonging to it. Acceptance of a demand, raised
by the majority union and discussion over it is not one and
the same thing. The union cannot raise a demand with a
view to represent entire body of workmen. Thus, it is evident
that the union has no right to raise the dispute, when it
made an attempt to represent the entire body of workmen.
It emerge out of the records that the union had acted with
a view to pursue its election strategy for referendum to be
held in the year 2012.
22. Assuming that the union can raise disputes
relating to policy issues, in that situation facts of the present
controversy are to be scanned. The union pleads that the
Legislature, vide Act No. 24 of 2010, enacted section 9C of
the Act, where in provisions have been made for setting up
of a grievance redressal machinery. For sake of convenience
those provisions are reproduced thus:
"9C. Setting up of Grievance Redressal Machinery:
1. Every industrial establishment employing twenty
or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance
Redressal Committee for the resolution of
disputes arising out of individual grievances.
2. The Grievance Redressal Committee shall consist
of equal number of members from the employer
and the workmen.
3. The chairperson of the Grievance Redressal
Committee shall be selected from the employer
and from among the workmen alternatively on
rotation basis every year.
2828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. The total number of members of the Grievance
Redressal Committee shall not exceed more than
six:
Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable
one woman member if the Grievance Redressal
Committee has two members and in case the
number of members are more than two, the number
of women members may be increased
proportionately.
5. Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, the setting up of Grievance Redressal
Committee shall not affect the right of the
workman to raise industrial dispute on the same
matter under the provisions of this Act.
6. The Grievance Redressal Committee may
complete its proceedings within thirty days on
receipt of a written application by or on behalf of
the aggrieved party.
7. The workman who is aggrieved of the decision of
the Grievance Redressal Committee may prefer an
appeal to the employer against the decision of
Grievance Redressal Committee and the employer
shall, within one month from the date of receipt of
such appeal, dispose off the same and send a
copy of his decision to the workman concerned.
8. Nothing contained in this section shall apply to
the workmen for whom there is an established
Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the
establishment concerned."
23. The union asserts that a grievance redressal
mechanism has been adopted by the Authority. According
to it, the mechanism adopted by the Authority is not in
consonance with the provisions of section 9C of the Act.
On the contrary, the Authority claims that sub-section (8)
of section 9C of the Act exempts it from formation of such
a grievance redressal committee, since an established
grievance redressal mechanism is already in existence in
its establishment. Grievance Redressal Mechanism
applicable in the establishment of the Authority is extracted
thus:
"To provide easily accessible machinery for
settlement of grievances and to adopt measures that
would ensure expeditious settlement of grievances
of staff and officers leading to increased satisfaction
in the job, thus resulting in improved productivity
and efficiency.
2. Applicability :
The scheme will cover all employees including
officers of AA1.
3. Grievance :
'Grievance' for the purpose of this scheme would
mean a grievance relating to any employee arising
out of implementation of the policies/rules or
decisions of the authority, interpretation of
service rules etc. of an individual nature or any
other matter related to work situation, other than
those referred in para 5(ii) and (iii).
4. Procedure for Handling Grievance:
Subject to the above provisions, individual
grievance of the employee shall henceforth be
processed and dealt with in the following manner:
4.1 An aggrieved employee shall take up his
grievance orally or in writing with the Local
Grievance Officer (LGO) through HOD who will
get facts of the case, give personal hearing and
try to resolve the grievance at his level in
consultation with the concerned department HOD/
and/or Unit/Station/Airport Incharge depending
upon the nature and scope of grievance. In case
the grievance cannot be settled within two weeks,
LGO will intimate the same to the aggrieved
employee giving reasons for the delay and also
indicating when it is likely to be settled.
4.2 If the grievance is not satisfactorily redressed
locally, the aggrieved employee may submit
grievance in writing through proper channel to
RED/APD Int'l Airport/respective ED(Pers) at
Hqrs. The RD/APD Int'1 Airport/ED(P&A) may
resolve grievance or refer it to the Grievance
Redressal Committee available or at the Region/
International Airport (depending upon nature of
grievance).
The constitution of the Grievance Redressal
Committee and Grievance Redressal Sub-
Committee is indicated at (Para 4.3). The
recommendations of the Grievance Redressal
Committee will be conveyed within one month to
RED/APD International Airport/ ED(P&A) at
headquarters for his consideration. The
Committee may also recommend RED/APD
International Airport to take up the issue with the
Grievance Redressal Committee at CHQ. The
decision of' such authority will be final subject to
the provisions contained in Para 4.4.
4.3 The nomination of Staff Grievance Officer and
constitution of the Grievance Redressal
Committee/Grievance Sub-Committee shall be as
under :
A. Grievance Redressal Officer
i.) Staff Grievance Officer
Officer Incharge of
(Domestic Airport)
Administration
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2829
ii) Staff Grievance Officer
A senior level. Officer
(RED Office/International
(SPM/DGM) from
Airport)
Personnel Department
iii) Staff Grievance Officer
General Manger(Pers)
(at Hqrs Level. One each
at Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan/
Operational Offices)
B. Grievance Redressal Committee
Grievance Redressal General Manager (Pers)
Committee (At Corporate General Manager (F&A)
Office)
Department Head to
which the aggrieved
employee belongs
Grievance Redressal Officer from Personnel
Committee (At Regional Department
Headquarter/ International Officer from Finance
Airport) Department
Department
Representative
to
which the aggrieved
employee belongs
The committee will be a Standing Committee in
nature. Two of its members (Pers. And Fin.
Department representatives) will be ex-officio
members, whereas, the third member will be
nominated with the approval of Member (P&A)
in the case of Headquarters and Airport Director
in the case of International Airports and by RED
in the case of Regional Headquarters. Third
member will be generally representing the
Department to which aggrieved employee belongs
and will be an officer of senior level. The
Committee should meet atleast once a month.
4.4 In exceptional cases, where an employee is not
satisfied with the decision of the Staff Grievance
Officer/Grievance Redressal Committee/RED/APD
International Airport as indicated above, he/she
will have the option to appeal to the Member
(P&A) concerned. The decision on such appeal
will be taken within one month of the receipt of
the appeal. The decision of the Member (P&A)
will be final.
4.5 The grievances in respect of the following
category of employee will not fall within the
purview of the Grievance Redressal Committee.
In their case, the procedure will be as under
i) In case of executives who are immediately below
Board level, an individual grievance may be taken
up with the concerned Member of the Board.
5 Other Conditions
i) If the grievance arises out of an order given by
the Management, the said order shall be complied
with before the employee concerned invokes the
procedure laid down for redressal of his grievance.
ii) The grievance pertaining to or arising out of the
following shall not come under the purview of the
Grievance Redressal Procedure.
a. Annual Performance Appraisal/Confidential
Reports.
b. Where the grievance does not relate to an
individual employee, and
c. In the case of any grievance arising out of
discharge or dismissal of an employee.
iii) Grievance pertaining to or arising out of
disciplinary action or appeal against such action
shall be channeled to the competent authority as
per the procedure laid down under the AAI
(Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Regulations.
iv) All grievances referred to the Grievance
Redressal Committee/other Authorities indicated
above shall be entered in a register to be
maintained for the purpose by the Grievance
Redressal Officer. GRO will send a monthly report
to Member (P&A) indicating the number of
grievances received, settled and pending during
the month.
v) This grievance procedure will be reviewed by the
management as and when it becomes necessary."
24. When grievance redressal mechanism applicable
to the authority is scanned, it came to light that employees
can raise their grievances before the committee detailed
therein. The Committee is supposed to meet once in a month
for redressal of such grievances. On being dissatisfied with
the decision of the Committee, right of an appeal is available
to an employee. However, participation of workmen in that
Committee is not provided in the grievance redressal
mechanism evolved by the Authority.
25. Whether formation of grievance redressal
mechanism in consonance with the provisions of section
9C of the Act is essential? Provisions of sub-section (8)
given an answer. As detailed above, sub-section (8) of
section 9C of the Act contemplates that when there is an
establishment grievance redressal mechanism in the
establishment concerned, provisions of section 9C of the
Act would not apply to the workmen of that establishment.
As noted above word "established" has been prefixed to
the grievance redressal mechanism. Hence question would
be as to what term "established" means. The word
"established" ordinarily means "fixed or laid down". In
2830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shorter Oxford English Dictionairy (3rd.Ed.) word
"establish" has been given a number of meanings, that is,
"to render stable or firm, to ratify, to confirm, to restore
permanently, to fix, settle, institute or ordain permanently,
to set up on a secure basis, to found, to set up or bring
about permanently". Therefore the word "establish" would
mean to bring into existence. Hence phrase "established
grievance redressal mechanism" used in sub-section (8) of
section 9C of the Act would mean a settled or laid down
grievance redressal mechanism.
26. As per case projected by the Authority,
Grievance Redressal Mechanism is in operation since
15.10.2000. Committee formed there-under has been working
smoothly for last more than a decade. No eyebrows were
ever raised on the Grievance Redressal Mechanism till
the Act was amended and section 9C was inserted therein.
The grievance redressal mechanism formulated by it
worked smoothly, without any hue and cry from entire body
of the workmen. The recognized union had not raised any
issue relating to formation of redressal grievance
mechanism, in consonance with the provisions of section
9C of the Act.
27. Mechanism evolved by the Authority cannot be
questioned by the union. Mere claim of the union that
participation of the workmen is not there in the grievance
redressal mechanism is not going to give any cause to it to
raise a dispute when said mechanism is working effectively
for more than a decade. As noted above, grievance
redressal mechanism should be established in an
establishment when provisions of section 9C of the Act
came into operation. Sub-section (8) nowhere speaks that
the grievance redressal mechanism should be in
consonance with the provisions detailed therein section
9C of the Act. Therefore. it is emerging over the record
that grievance redressal mechanism established in
the organization of the Authority is a mechanism, as
envisaged by sub-section (8) of section 9C of the Act. It
gives exemption to the Authority from evolution of
grievance redressal mechanism in consonance with
provisions of section 9C of the Act. These reasons persuade
me to project that provisions of section 9C of the Act are
not applicable to the Authority.
28. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is evident
that the union has no right to raise an issue which affects
entire body of workmen, employed in the establishment of
the Authority. Issue raised by the union has not acquired
character of an industrial dispute. Even otherwise on
factual matrix too, the Authority is exempted from evolving
grievance redressal mechanism in consonance of the
provisions of section 9C of the Act, since established
grievance redressal mechanism is already in operation in
its organization. These reasons persuade me to discard the
claim put forward by the union. An award is passed in
favour of the Authority and against the union. It be sent to
the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated: 16.01.2014
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1094-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 40@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&30011@116@2003&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/ 2004)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2. Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-30011/116/2003-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 40/2004
Sh. Mohinder Singh
Versus
B.P.C.L.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L- 30011/116/2003-IR(M) dated
11/02/2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for the adjudication :-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2831
"Whether the action taken by the management of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in relation to the
workman Sh. Mohinder Singh for punishment of
demotion to lower grade (by one) with reduction in
salary by at least 2 (two) increments values, is fair
and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled and from which date?"
On 19.4.2004 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 40/4 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 27.4.04.
Against contents of claim statement management
filed Written statement on 19.4.2005.
Against contents of Written Statement workman
filed Rejoinder on 9/8/05.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties my Ld.
Predecessor framed issues.
Issue No. 1
Relating to departmental enquiry was decided as
preliminary issue against workman on the basis of evidence
on record.
On 6.2.14 workman moved an application U/s 151
CPC for withdrawal of Industrial Dispute which has been
supported with his affidavit. .
Workman in aforesaid application mentioned as
follows:—
1. That the above said case is pending before this
Hon'ble Court.
2. That the claimant wishes to withdraw the dispute.
He humbly submits that he does have not any claim of
whatsoever in nature against the management. He further
submits that he does not wish to challenge either the
penalty imposed on him vide letter dated 25.4.2001 or any
of its effect or any other issue.
3. The claimant further submits that he shall not
challenging the order upholding the enquiry or any other
order.
4. The claimant is filling the present application
without any force and coercion and out of his own free
will. He submits that he shall not be filling any dispute in
future.
In view of the submissions, it is respectfully prayed
that the claimant be allowed to withdrawn the present
case.
Pass such other further orders as deem fit and proper
to this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and the
circumstances of the case.
As this Tribunal is not empowered to permit the
workman to withdraw his Industrial Dispute. So, no order
in respect of withdrawal can be passed but workman has
expressed his desire not to proceed further.
In these circumstances it is a fit case in which No Dispute
Award can be passed. Which is accordingly passed.
Dated : 07-02-2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1095-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh
fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
12@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&3&2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&30015@4@2006&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/ 2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of ONGC Ltd and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-30015/4/2006-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present :
Sri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management of O.N.G.C. Ltd.,
Tripura, Agartala.
-Vrs-
The workman Sri Shyamal Ch. Bhowmik,
Agartala, Tripura.
Ref. Case No.12 of 2006
2832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES :
For the Management :
Mr. P. B.Choudhury,
Advocate,
Miss S.Senapati, Advocate.
For the Workman :
Mr. D. K. Biswas, Advocate,
Mr. G.S.Bhattacharjee,
Advocate.
Date of Award : 31-07-2013
AWARD
l. This Reference is initiated on the Industrial
Dispute raised by the workman Sri Shyamal Ch. Bhowmik
against the ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, Agartala, Tripura
West, which was referred by the Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide their Order No.L- 30015/4/2006- IR(M);
Dated: 28/02/2006. The Schedule of the Reference is as
under :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the claim of the workman Shri Shyamal
Chandra Bhowmik that he had worked continuously
for more than 240, days with the management of
ONGC correct? Whether the settlement arrived at on
27/28-1-2001 is biding on the workman? If so, to what
relief the workman is entitled?
2. On receipt of the Reference this case was
registered and notices were served upon both the parties
who appeared and contested the proceeding by filing their
respective Claim Statement/Written Statement.
The case of the workman, in brief. is that the workman
was engaged by the ONGC Tripura Asset, Agartala as
casual worker in the month of November,1982 and since
then he had been working availing leave facilities and other
service benefits till January 2001. The workman along with
others was engaged sometime from the month of November
to the month of July each year and in order to avoid
statutory liabilities the number of days at work was always
shown less than 240 days. The workman was one of the
three Skilled Motor Mechanics utilized for the Project at
work from November to July. In the year 1992 the workman
approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court filing Writ
Petition demanding regularization of service when the
Management of ONGC contested mainly on the ground
that the workman had no record of serving for 240 days or
more in any particular year; while the Hon'ble High Court
was pleased to call upon to decide whether this workman
actually worked for 240 days or more in any year prior to
filing his Writ Petition. During the pendency of the Writ
Petition the workman was called for interview for the Post
of Junior Security Guard in the ONGC Project at Agartala
and on the basis of the Circular dated 6.9.99 issued by the
Management in which departmental candidate who
completed 240 days of continuous service in 12
consecutive months were eligible for consideration. As
such, the Management has admitted the fact that the
workman had worked for 240 days in a year which entitled
-him to be called for the interview and then the workman
brought on record of the Writ Petition the above fact of the
admission by a supplementary Affidavit on 02.02.2000.
While the employer did not file any objection or counter
objection to dispute or dislodge this documentary
evidence. Accordingly the Hon'ble High Court held that
the workman has admitted to have worked for more than
240 days continuously in a period of 12 months; and that
the plea of the employer on memorandum of settlement
arrived at on 27/28-01-2001 between the Trade Union' Units
and the Management for one time settlement was not
binding on this workman as he was never a member of any
Unions of the casual workers and that further because the
said settlement was only with respect to the workers of 180
days category. Thereafter the ONGC took the matter to the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court on appeal and
the same appeal was also disposed of affirming the findings
of the learned Single Bench of the High Court.
The Management on being dis-satisfied with the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati
High Court approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which
decided the issue by holding that the main issue whether
the workman worked for 240 days or less than that has to
be proved by the workman who claimed the benefit, and
the question with regard to the number of days shall be
decided by the Tribunal on a Reference made by the
Government. The workman stated that the question whether
he actually worked for 240 days or more in the year 1989-90
and 1990-91 can be decided if the employer is directed to
produce the Attendance Registers of the said 2 years. He
added that in the year 1989-90 the Bio Data Form Record
237 days and in 1990-91 records 235 days but in the actual
field the workman worked for more days than recorded in
the Bio-data Form. The workman being a Skilled Motor
Vehicle Mechanic was utilized by the ONGC beyond this
record days of work as firstly, atleast 4/5 paid holidays in a
year the service of the workman was fully utilized and
payment was also made in respect of the salary shown in
the record; and secondly every year when the Geo-Science
Party starts its work in mid November with its survey team
and a fleet of 20 vehicles, this workman was summoned at
least 15 days earlier to get the vehicles ready by carrying
out the minor maintenance and the said 15 days of work
done by the workman was rendered prior to the starting of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2833
the work for the year taken only from the skilled casual
worker for preparatory works. Hence the extra days of work
do not recorded in the Bio-data Form or in any other
document like certificate issued by the employer. However,
the only record for verification as records the extra 10 to 15
days of work in each year can only be found in the
Attendance Register which is in the custody of the
Management. The question of number of days of work in a
particular year was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge
by disposing the Writ Petition. The Learned Division Bench
of the High Court while disposing of the Writ Appeal gave
its findings as follows :
"10: It is also trite that a mere denial cannot be treated
as a specific denial. It was the specific case of the
Petitioner in his Writ Petition that he had worked for
more than 240 days continuously since November
1982, and he had maintained the record of the service
so rendered by him in respect of the years 1989-90
and 1990-91 and in support of this submission the
Petitioner had annexed the photocopy of the
Attendance Register to his Writ Petition. The
Respondents Appellants herein did not specifically
assert in their Affidavit in opposition that the copies
of the Attendance Register produced by the Writ
Petitioner were false, forged and/or fabricated. What
they had contended was that the copies were not
authenticated documents. In support of their denial
that the Petitioner had not put in 240 days of service
in the year 1989-90 and 1990-91, the Respondents
Appellants herein did not produced the Attendance
Registers. Even when the Petitioner filed Additional
Affidavit pointing out that the Respondents had not
produce the relevant attendance Registers, which
were the best document to prove as to whether the
Petitioner had really worked for more than 240 days
or not, the Respondents choose not to produce the
same. This apart the Respondents also did not assign
any reason as to why they had not produced the
requisite Attendance Register. In fact no explanation
in this regard, is discernible, even today, from the
materials on record."
Hence, the workman stated that the Attendance
Registers alone can solve the core question finally whether
the workman did actually worked for more than 240 days in
the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 if the Employer is directed to
produce the said Attendance Registers.
Further case of the workman is that the Settlement
arrived on 27/28-01-2001 was relating to the casual worker
of 180 days category and the name of the workman was
included there as he was treated as one belonging to 180
days category though actually on different years his service
was taken for more than 240 days during period of 12
consecutive months as such, the Settlement dated
27/28-01-2001 is not binding on the workman. It is also
mentioned by the workman that the said settlement dated
27/28- 01-2001 has been challenged by some other
aggrieved casual workers in the Civil Court and in those
cases, the Unions were represented by persons who had
no authority and there was no conciliation proceeding at
all. Consequently, the said Memorandum of Settlement was
found invalid. However, the matter is pending before the
Appellate Court. He also added that the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 27/28-01-2001 shows that it was signed
by Sunil Rudra Paul and Lokesh Dey as General Secretary
of the Din Majdur Union and Vice President of the Sramik
Union respectively. This Memorandum was also signed
by one T.P.Ojha, the Regional Labour Commissioner as a
Conciliation Officer and the signature of the said
Conciliation Officer was obtained on the Agreement without
any conciliation Proceeding and as such, this Settlement is
not binding effect on the workman.
3. The Management, assailing the averments of the
workman stated that the workman was employed as casual
worker in the ONGC for seasonal field work in connection
with Geo-Science Division (Respondent No.2) which
controls and manage the Geo- Physical exploration
activities of Respondent No.l in Tripura. The field survey
work in the Geo-Science Division which is under Geo-
Physical Party No. 27 is seasonal for 6 to 7 months in a
year between the months of November and June depending
on the work assigned to the field party and weather; and
the workman primarily involved in field service and seismic
survey in specific areas which is purely seasonal and
regular employees are not engaged since there is no work
for them through out the year. The Management
categorically denied the contention that to avoid statutory
liabilities the number of days at work always shown short
of 240 days. Actually the workman has never worked for
240 days in any given year as it reveals from the Bio-Data
Form supplied to each contingent/casual worker of GP-27
of the Geo-Science Division by the Party Chief and it is
mandatory for the workers to fill up the Bio-Data Form,
after filling up the same giving particulars against each
column by his own hand and to sign to the said Form
before submission to the Party Chief. According to the
Managernent as per Bio-Data Form submitted by the
workman the workman worked from 1983-84 to 1989- 90 as
shown below:—
Year
Period
No. of
working days
1983-84
14th November, 1983 to
209
10th June, 1984
1984-85
2nd December, 1984 to
192
10th June, 1985
2834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1985-86
13th November, 1985 to
225
15th June, 1986
1986-87
22nd December,1986 to
215
29th June, 1987
1987-88
9th November, 1987 to
229
1st July, 1988
1988-89
7th November, 1988 to
236
30th June, 1989
1989-90
7th November, 1989 to
237
1st July, 1990
1990-91
7th November, 1990 to
235
30th June, 1991
1991-92
7th November, 1991 to
229
30th June, 1992
1992-93
25th November, 1992 to
217
30th June, 1993
1993-94
16th November, 1993 to
216
30th June, 1991
1994-95
15th November, 1994 to
227
30th June, 1995
1995-96
17th November, 1995 to
227
30th June, 1996
1996-97
15th November, 1996 to
227
30th June, 1997
1997-98
15th November, 1997 to
227
30th June, 1998
1998-99
15th November, 1998 to
227
30th June, 1999
The Management contended that the certificates are
issued by the Respondent No. 2 certifying the number of
days of work done by the workman during the relevant,
field season, whether skilled, unskilled, casual. contingent
or casual driver and the said certificates are duly signed by
the workman concerned and re-issued to the workman who
are the custodian of the same. The workman has annexed
the certificate dated 23rd May, 1991 confirming that he had
worked for 237 days from 7th November,1989 to lst July,1990
but he failed to produce the other certificates issued to
him.
4. The Management further stated that the workman
was paid annual bonus as per the number of days he had
worked each year, and the bonus record maintained for
each year indicates the number of work put by the workman
concerned during the year and the workman accepted the
bonus amount calculated on the basis of each year
without raising any dispute in regard to the number of
working days put in by him an as reflected in the entire
record. The Management also denied that the workman
was one skilled mechanic working with motor vehicle used
for Project work. The workman has no qualification as
Automobile Mechanic and was merely engaged as casual
worker to do casual work. The workman has not produced
any material in support of his contention that he was one
of the skilled Mechanic working with the Motor Vehicle;
whereas in his Writ Petition the workman has prayed before
the Honble High Court. inter-alia, for a Writ directing the
respondents to provide the workman with a regular post of
Automobile Mechanic with effect from November, 1982
but there is no Post of Automobile Mechanics with the
Respondents and the post nearest to the said description
is the post of Assistant Technician (Auto); and for
appointment to the said post a candidate is required to
have a Trade certificate in Motor Mechanic, Auto Trade:
but the workman admittedly is not possessed with any
such qualification or certificate .
In this connection the Management referred a
certified Standing Order for contingent employees of the
ONGC wherein Clause -2(1) of the Standing Order classified
the contingent employees as temporary and casual, and as
per Clause-2(i) and Clause- 2(ii) the workman who has been
on the rolls of the Corporation and has put not less than
180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive
months shall be a temporary workman provided that a
temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days
of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and
who possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by
the Corporation may be considered for conversion as a
regular employee. The Management also referred their
Office Memorandum dated 1st August 1967 in terms of
which in regard to the question of regularization of
contingent workers, it was decided that contingent workers
may be absorbed against regular posts provided they have
completed 240 days service in the Corporation in 12
consecutive months; they are held against regular post,
and they possess requisite qualifications and experience
as laid down in their recruitment regulation. It is also referred
by the Management that an Office Order dated 16.7.91
issued by the GP General Manager (personnel), wherein,
apart from the various conditions mentioned above for
even being considered for absorption as a regular employee,
it was further provided that no extra post will be created
for contingent workers and no relaxation in the aforesaid
post will be accorded. The further contention of the
Management is that as regards the workman is concerned,
assuming though not admitting that he has put in 240 days
of work in a period of 12 consecutive months, then at best,
he has a right to be considered at par with all other
eligible candidates on merits, and in accordance with the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2835
provisions of Articles 14 & 16, of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the workman under no circumstances, has
preferential right of appointment to any post with ONGC
which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. The Management further denied
the contention of the workman that it contested the Writ
petition filed by the workman before the High Court, mainly
on the ground that the workman had no record of service
for 240 days or more in any particular year. Actually in the
counter affidavit to the Writ Petition, the Management apart
from disputing the workman's contention of having worked
for more than 240 days in any given year further submitted
that the workman had not acquired any statutory right to
be absorbed or regularized; and since the workman was
engaged and working as casual worker on the basis of
daily rated wages, he could not claim to be treated at par
with the regularly employed workman of the management.
The Management pleaded that as regards the memorandum
dated 3rd January 2000 calling the workman for an
interview for the post of Junior Security Guard in the
Respondent's Project at Agartala, which was based on a
circular issued by the Respondent on 6.9.1999 under which
departmental candidates, who completed 240 days of
continuous service in 10 consecutive months were only
eligible for consideration and the memorandum was issued
in favour of the workman due to bonafide mistake and the
authority who issued the memorandum had no knowledge
of the documents maintained by the Management at the
Kolkata Office. The General Manager, Geo Science, Kolkata
maintained all the records in his Kolkata Office regarding
the employment of contingent/casual workers engaged for
the field work, and no other record was maintained in this
regard in the Agartala Office of the Tripura Project. It
appears that the recruitment and promotion office at
Agartala erroneously issued letters of interview to all
persons employed in the Field Parties in Tripura and in
view of this mistake no action was taken on the interview
letter nor were any recruitment made thereafter on the
basis of the said interview letter. It is also mentioned that
the findings arrived at by the Hon'ble High Court in favour
of the workman on the basis of the said memorandum has
been negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further
contention of the Management is that the memorandum of
settlement arrived at on 27/28-01-2001 between the Trade
Union and the Respondent was not binding on the
workman for the reasons stated in the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court is of no consequence as it stands
negated in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It is also pleaded by the Management that the
Attendance Register for the period November.1990 and
December,1990 has long been missing and in accordance
to which an FIR on 25.5.91 was lodged with the Kakraban
Police Station on 25.9.91 yet in his Writ Petition filed before
the Hon'ble High Court, it was the workman's case that
during the period of 1989-90 and 1990-91 the workman while
allegedly working continuously for more than 240 days
managed to keep the record in this regard; and the workman
annexed photo copies of what he claimed to be were some
pages of Attendance Register; and that assuming that said
contention of the workman to be correct. it is but apparent
that the workman was a party to the illegal removal of the
Attendance Register from the premises of the Management,
hence, the onus to produce the Attendance Register before
this Tribunal is for the workman but not on the part of the
Management.
5. The Management categorically denied that in
actual field the workman worked for more than that recorded
in the Bio-data Form for the year 1989-90 and 1990-91 as
alleged; and that the workman was a Skilled Motor Vehicle
Mechanics and was utilized by the Management beyond
the days of work recorded m the Bio-data Form; and that
on 4 to 5 paid holidays in a year the services of the workman
were utilized and payment was made in addition to the
salary. It is further denied by the Management that every
year when the Geo-Science Party started its work in mid
November with its Survey team and a fleet of 20 vehicles,
the workman was summoned at least 15 days earlier to get
the vehicles ready by carrying out minor maintenance as
alleged; and that the said 15 days of work by the workman
were rendered prior to and as a prelude to the beginning of
the survey work.
6. The Management contended that the workman
has no where stated that he was engaged against any
regular vacancy according to the Rules and hence, the
claim of regularization for his alleged work for a period
above the Statutory period while the records submitted by
him reveal that he worked for 237 days during the period
from 07.11.1989 and 01.07.1990 and now he can not make a
volt-face to claim that he had worked for any period other
than for what he claimed to have been engaged. The
Management also stated that there were 339 numbers of
casual workers including the workman who were appointed
by the Respondent No.2 and at the relevant time a number
of casual workers were members of the Trade Union namely
ONGC Din Mazdoor Union (CITU) and Tripura ONGC
Shramik Union (INTUC) which raised demands representing
the casual workers including the workman engaged in the
Geo Science Division; and after lengthy discussion and in
conciliation proceeding in presence of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (C ), camp at Agartala, came to a
memorandum of settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial
Dispute Act between the Management of ONGC,
RBC,CRBC and the workmen represented by the said two
Trade Unions before the Regional Labour Commissioner
(C). The workman was a party to and was duly represented
2836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in the conciliation proceeding before the Regional Labour
Commissioner and his name features in column No.88 of
the casual workers of GP. 27 which is annexed as Annexure-
A to the Memorandum of Settlement. This settlement
provided. inter-alia, for dispensing with the services of the
contingent/casual workers on a one time lump-sum payment,
as agreed to and specified in the said settlement, together
with withdrawal of any pending cases in any Court as well
as for engaging the casual workers for the season ending
June, 2001 and dispensing with their services. Accordingly
after June, 2001 the workman was not engaged, finally
under the settlement casual workers were offered a financial
package and out of the 339 casual workers who are party to
the said settlement as many as 271 casual workers have
received financial package, and in this view of the matter,
the settlement is binding on the workmen and only on this
count the workman raised has not effect of the settlement
is unsustainable in law. Further the workman having
accepted re-engagement for the year 2000-2001 in terms of
the said settlement, he can not be permitted to approbate
and reprobate by taking the benefit of and yet challenging
the settlement, in fact, based on the rival contention the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had assumed the settlement to be
legal and binding and then only referred the question as to
whether the settlement was binding on the workman.'The
Management categorically stated that in their reply to
paragraph-9 of the proceeding before the Civil Court in
regard to the settlement dated 27/28/0l.2001 are matter of
record and in the said proceeding it has come on record
that the Union were represented by presenting who have
no authority and there was no conciliation proceeding
which is not true.
7. The workman examined 3 witnesses including
himself while the Management examined 2 witnesses.
The workman Sri Shyaml Chandra Bhowmik (WW.l)
in his evidence on Affidavit stated that he was a workman
under ONGC as casual labourer (Skilled) for about 20 years
since 1982, and in January,2001 a settlement was executed
between the management of ONGC and some
representatives of the workmen in respect of the casual
labourer of 180 days category wherein his name was also
included in the said list but he was not a member of any
Union nor can be included under 180 days category as he
worked for more than 240 days in many years during 20
years of service. The said settlement of January, 2001 was
between the Management and some workmen who were
neither office bearer nor deputed by the Union, and it
proceeded in presence of the conciliation Officer from
Guwahati but without his participation the workman was
not aware about the meeting or settlement which he came
to know only when he was informed that his service was
terminated offering some package and thereafter he after
collecting necessary information, did not accept the
package. He stated that he lodged a case in the High Court
at Agartala Bench in 1992 prior to 9 years' of the aforesaid
settlement demanding regularization of service, and he
succeeded in this case in which the judgment was delivered
on 6.9.2001 while the Management preferred an Appeal
vide W.A. 26/2002 wherein the Management tried to
establish that the workman did not worked for 240 days in
any spell of one year when the Hon'ble High Court asked
the Management to produce the Attendance Register for
the year 1991. The only dispute raised before the Court
was whether he worked for 240 days in any spell of one
year. But the requisition made by the Court could not be
complied with by producing Attendance Register pertaining
to the relevant period, inspite of affording repeated
opportunities by the Court, ultimately the Hon'ble High
Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Bench holding
that the Management admitted in its documents produced
by the petitioner ( Interview letter issued to the workman
and such other workmen who worked for 240 days), that
the workman worked for 240 days qualifying for the
interview and the Management did not dispute this
document nor did it offer any explanation otherwise; and
that failure to produce the Attendance Register as called
for is presumed to be a case of non-production to avoid
proof. According to the workman the fact that he worked
for more then 240 days at least in one year was established
both on admission and presumption in law. The
Management thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and on the basis of the order of the Supreme Court
this Reference is being adjudicated by this Tribunal where
the workman prayed to call for some record including the
Attendance Register which are in the custody of the
Management but such production has been resisted and
hence, the workman submitted such documents which are
in his custody such as the copies of the documents
produced by the ONGC in the High Court, the certified
copy of the judgment passed by the Single Bench and
Division Bench of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court. The
workman also stated that he litigation was started in the
year 1992 when the issue of the Attendance Register is
clearly involved, but during that long process for the first
time on 22.2.2007 the Management vide its objection to the
production of documents, a document with the appearance
of an FIR is submitted pleading that the relevant
Attendance Register was lost and an FIR was duly lodged
but there is no reason to believe in the genuinety of the
document which is a concocted, manufactured in collusion
to defeat the lawful claim of the workman. Further claim of
the workman is that he was working under Chief Geo Physist
of Party No. 27 as Skilled Assistant in vehicle operation as
he know the work of motor. mechanic and he was liked by
all officers for his faithfulness and hard working nature,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2837
and he along with few other such assistants were called to
duty at least 8-10 days prior to the commencement of the
field work and during these days they cleaned and
maintained the vehicle for use in the field survey work.
During that period their attendance was not normally
recorded, but in 1991 for the first time he demanded the
Attendance Register to sign and the said Register was
remained in the custody of the Store Keeper then he went
to the Store Keeper but he refused to bring out the register
before the party work starts formally then the workman
complained to the party chief who called the Store Keeper
and asked him to allow the workman to sign and since then
he could sign in the Attendance Register. But from the next
year the system was changed, while a separate attendance
register was maintained for work of the pre- survey days
which were not considered while issuing certificates
recording number of days they worked in a year. Otherwise
the authorized officers never certified recording actual
number of days worked in the field only to keep it below
240 days. He also added that in the year 1991 when he
demanded the Attendance Register, the Officer namely Sri
NNB Naidu, under whom he worked and the Store Keeper
Sri Binoy Kumar Das would be the best witnesses to the
facts stated by him. He further contended that the
Settlement dated 27/28.01.2001 by which few hundred
casual worker's service was terminated was executed
violating the law and it was not a Tripartite and the
Conciliation Officer did not play any role of the proceeding
he only remained present; and it was a settlement with
regard to the casual workers of 180 days category for which
he did not belong to; and his name was included either by
mistake or by motive.
In course of his cross-examination the workman
stated that he had produced Bio-data Form to be filled up
by the contingent workers which was signed by him vide
Exhibit-l wherein Exhibit-l(l) is his signature. He has also
submitted the copy of the Tripartite Settlement dated
28.l.2001 vide Exhibit-2. The witness (WWl) volunteered
that the Management compelled him to put his signature
on that document. He also mentioned that he did not file
any complaint before the police on the ground that he was
threatened by the Management but he informed this matter
to the Management in writing which was damaged in his
presence. He also did not send the same by Post. The
workman also said that he did not produce any certificate
from any Government Institution to show that he was a
motor mechanic/skilled mechanic; and he used to get bonus
from the Management. He also added that he did not submit
any document to show that there is sanctioned post of
motor mechanic in ONGC. It is mentioned by the workman
that he is not aware whether out of 339 numbers of Geo
Science Party working in the field. 227 persons have taken
away the benefit and left the job in terms of Exhibit-2 and
that he used to work in a Project namely Geo Science Party.
In course of suggestion tendered by the Management,
workman denied that he was not compelled by the
Management to fill up Exhibit-l and that his protest
letter was damaged by the Management. He also denied
the suggestion that he never worked 240 days in 12
consecutive months and that he failed to produce any
document that he worked more than 240 days. The workman
also confirmed that he did not file any appointment letter
issued by the ONGC while he volunteered that the
appointment letter was issued to him but he lost it; and
that he was around 50 years on the date of his deposition.
8. The workman witness No.2 Sri Dhirendra Chandra
Banik, one of the colleagues of the workman working in
Geo Physical Party No.27 of ONGC as Driver prior to
joining of the workman stated that the workman was a hard
working and was liked by the Higher Officers. He mentioned
that the Geo Party worked in the field until the monsoon
came and from the month of July to October the casual
workers of the party remained Idle. He also said that the
workman Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik was working as
Skilled workers as Motor mechanic Assistant and before
commencement of the work in the field in the month of
November, the workman was called to the Abhaynagar store
yard where all the party vehicles were parked during the
idle period and other 3/4 similar mechanical assistments
namely Narayan Paul, Arun Sarkar and Darlong were also
called to work on the vehicle wash. grease and make the
vehicles fit for use every year. He also added that the party
chief did not allow the worker to sign on those 7/8 days in
any Attendance Register and sometime in 1990-91 the
workman Shyamal Ch. Bhowmik insisted on signing while
the Officer Mr. Naidu allowed the workman to sign on the
Attendance Register but at the time of issuing certificate
those days of works was not included.
During his cross-examination the workman witness
No.2 said that he had not produced any document to show
that he used to work in Geo- Physical Party No. 27 as Driver
nor did he submit any document to show that the workman
acquired any mechanical education qualification from
Government Institution nor did he annexed any letter
showing that they protested against the act of the
Management in not recording 7 to 8 days extra work by
issuing a certificate, while the W.W.2 volunteered that they
protested that act of the Management. The W.W.2 also
denied the suggestion tendered by the Management that
he did not work in Geo-Physical Party No.27 and that the
workman was not in fact worked 7 to 8 days prior to the
season.
9. The Workman witness No.3 Sri Chandan Deb is
one of the colleagues of the workman in Geo-Physical
Party No.27, who was working as Welder/repairer stated
that the workman was a Skilled Motor Mechanic Assistant;
and that a Settlement between the ONGC Management
and the Workers Union took place in January, 2001 by
which their services as casual workers was terminated and
2838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he received the package along with many others in terms
of the said agreement. The workman did not accept the
package as he did not belong to 180 days casual worker.
He fall in the category of 240 days labourer. The workman
witness No. 3 also stated that every year before
commencement of the survey work of the Geo- Physical
Party in the Month of November, the workman along with
Narayan Paul and few others working as Motor Vehicle
Assistant ( Mechanic) were called and engaged in the
repairing cleaning and maintaining the vehicles before 7/8
days of commencement of the survey work and for those
7/8 days salary was paid but no attendance was taken and
those dates were not included in the number of days for
which certificate was issued by the authority. He also
added that while he visited the ONGC store yard at
Abhoynagar in Agartala where all the vehicles of the Geo
Physical party 27 were parked during the idle period, while
Shyamal and other Assistants worked on the vehicles for
7/8 days at the store yard. The witness concerned added
that he came to know that the workman had filed a case
in 1992 for his regularization basing on his claim to have
worked for more than 240 days in a year and he succeeded
as the authority could not produce the Attendance Register
in spite of direction by the Hon'ble Court and that the
workman is passing his days in serious crisis since 2001
when he was removed from service offering some financial
package which he did not accept.
10. The Management witness No.1 Mr. Sanjib Sett
who was working as Chief Geophysicist ( Surface) in
GP.27 at seismic survey Camp situated at Tapaban and
Phatikchara at Tripura for the period from November,1999
to June 2000 and again from November 2000 to June 2001,
stated that the period for seismic survey field season
start from November 1999 to June 2000 and again from
November 2000 to June 2001 and the work of the ONGC is
exploitation of hydrocarbon and natural gases which is
preceded by some important work and it is temporary in
nature. The work of seismic survey is conducted in different
localities wherever the Geophysicists feel it necessary and
is purely a seasonal work in which rain is the great
hindrance. He also added that the workman Shyamal
Chandra Bhowmik used to work in vehicle repairing
Section in the Camp .as a contingent/casual works and he
never worked for 240 days in any field season and that it
would appear that the workman had filled up documents
and signed the said document in his own hand writing
wherefrom it would appear that he had worked from 1984 to
2001 but in none of the year he had worked for 240 days as
it appears from the Exhibit-1. He also added that the workman
was never called upon to work 8 to 10 days prior to start of
seismic survey and there was one Attendance Register
and no separate Attendance Register was maintained for
Vehicle Repairing Section. He also said that the Vehicles
were regularly maintained by the Logistic Section of the
ONGC Ltd. itself and hence the Question of calling upon
the workman prior to 8 to 10 days of starting of seismic
survey does not arise. The Management witness also stated
that there was a dispute regarding non-engagement of
contingent/casual work in the year 2001-2002 which. led to
an elaborate conciliation proceeding and accordingly a
Tripartite Settlement was entered into by and between the
Management of ONGC and the Leader of the Recognised
Unions which represented the majority of the contingent/
casual workers. By virtue of the said Tripartite Settlement
the contingent workers were paid lump sum amount for
their dis-engagement. The witness concerned has
produced the Tripartite Settlement marked as Annexure-II
(Exhibit-2 proved by the workman). He also mentioned that
the said Tripartite Settlement was signed by the Chief
Geophysicists(s) Mr. Robin Mazumder, and Superintendent
Geophysicists (s) Mr. R.C.Mishra on behalf of the
Management; Sri Sunil Rudrapaul, General Secretary, ONGC
Din Mazdoor Union (CITU); Sri Lokesh Dey, Vice-President
of the ONGC Shramik Union (INTUC). Besides the Regional
Labour Commissioner (C) Mr. T. P. Ojha and two witnesses
also signed the said Tripartite Settlement. In terms of the
said settlement out of 339 workers, 271 workers took away
the benefits flowing out of the said Tripartite Settlement
and that the majority of the contingent/ casual workers
have settled the dispute in terms of the said settlement. In
course of his cross-examination he confirmed the statement
made in their W.S. at para-2 that the workman, is admittedly
not possessed with any such qualifications or certificates;
and in any case, since the workman has not completed 240
days in any given year, he was not entitled to be considered
for appointment or be treated at part with regular employees.
He has also proved the Bio-data form marked as Exhibit-l
(in two pages) and mentioned that the contingent/casual
worker Sri S.C. Bhowmik himself filled up the said Form
and that the Column-IV of Exhibit-1 was recorded basing
upon the certificate issued and that the Attendance
Register of 1990-91 was available with the ONGC at the
time of issuing Exhibit-1 but he did not know whether 2
numbers of Officers named in the evidence of workman
S.C.Bhowmik has been cited as Management witness. He
also could not say whether there was a conciliation
proceeding and that whether the Attendance Register for
the year 1989-90, and 1990-91 were available with the ONGC
but those were not produced intentionally.
1l. The Management Witness No.2, Mr. R.C.Mishra,
Chief Geophysicist (S) who was posted in GP-27 in Camp
Amtali, Camp Balonia, Camp Tapoban Ashram and Camp
Fatikchera in the year 1995, June to 2002 June, stated that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2839
there was a dispute in regard to the non-engagement of
contingent/casual workers working for the year 2001-02
which led an elaborate conciliation proceeding and
accordingly Tripartite Settlement was entered into by and
between the Management ONGC and the Leaders of the
recognized Unions which represented the contingent/
casual workers. In terms of the said Tripartite Settlement,
the contingent/casual workers were paid lump sum amount
for their disengagement. He also mentioned that it would
appear from the said Tripartite Settlement that it was signed
by Chief Geophysicist (s) Mr. Rabin Mazumder and
Sri R.C.Mishra, the then Superintendent Geophysicists(s)
himself on behalf of the Management; Sri Sunil Rudra Paul,
General Secretary, ONGC Din Mazdoor Union (CITU) and
Sri Lokesh Dey, Vice President of the ONGC Shramik Union
(INTUC) also signed the said Memorandum of Settlement.
He further mentioned that besides the above two other
witnesses had also signed the Memorandum, and finally it
was signed by Mr. T. P. Ojha, Regional Labour
Commissioner (C), Guwahati. In terms of the said Settlement
out of 339 workers, 271 workers took away the benefits
flowing out of the said Tripartite Settlement and prior to
signing of the said Settlement the Regional Labour
Commissioner (C), Mr. T.P.Ojah, called all the parties for
settlement of the discussion and he helped both the parties
to sort out the difference between the parties and the
Settlement was signed at the end of the conciliation. In his
cross-examination he stated that besides the matter
regarding Tripartite Settlement he has no knowledge on
other incidents involving the Reference.
12. In this Reference, this Tribunal is to decide 2
issues namely (l) whether the claim of the workman that he
worked more than 240 days in a year is correct; (2) Whether
the Settlement arrived at on 27/28-01-2001 binding with the
workman.
From the evidence on record as discussed above,
along with the documents produced by both the parties, it
appears that the plea of the workman is that he had worked
240 days in 12 consecutive months continuously in a year
since 1982 to 2001 and in support of his contention the
workman has produced the documents namely the Certified
copy of the Attendance Register marked as Exhibit-6 (Page-
43 & 44); the Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble
Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Civil Rule No.144 of
1992 marked as Exhibit-3. the Certified copy of Affidavit
submitted by the workman in Civil Rule No.144/1992 along
with its enclosures namely the certified copy of Circular
dated 6.9.99 issued by the ONGC Agartala; the Certified
copy of Memorandum calling the workman for appearing
the interview vide Exhibit-4; the Certified copy of the order
dated 9-6-2004 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.A.
No. 20(2002) vide Exhibit-5. The workman also submitted
the Certified copy of the Writ Appeal submitted by the
Management against the judgment and order dated 6.9.01
passed by the Learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 144/
92 along with the certified copies of the relevant documents
namely history Card of Casual Workers for the purpose of
making bonus, Bio-data Form in respect of the Contingent/
Casual workers; the Memorandum regarding engagement,
the extract from Daily Attendance Register; Certified copy
of Memorandum of Settlement dated 27/28-01-2001 vide
Exhibit-6; and the Certified copy of the Judgment and Order
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1909/
2005 vide Exhibit-8. The workman also alleged that he was
working as Motor Mechanic Assistant and about 8 to 10
days prior to starting of project work he along with other
workers were called by the Management and they were
engaged to clean, grease and make O.K. the vehicles to be
used for the seismic survey work which were lying vacant
during the rainy season for suspension of the works. But
the workman along with others who were called prior to
starting of the project work were not allowed to put their
signature on the Attendance Register although they were
paying the remuneration and their attendance was not
brought in the Bio-data Form and the history Card of
casual workers for the purpose of making bous. He
further contended that in order to avoid statutory problem
the Management did not record their entire Attendance
but actually the workman along with some other Motor
Mechanics had worked more than 240 days in consecutive
12 month. The plea of the workman that the Management
willfully withhold the Attendance Register from the
Hon'ble Court inspite of allowing them sufficient
opportunities to produce the same and hence every
presumption of the fact that the workman had worked more
than 240 days in a year. Further plea of the workman is that
the Management of ONGC in terms of their Circular dated
6-9-99 issued call card for appearing in the interview
on 23-l-2000 on the basis of the condition that the
departmental candidates/existing contingent workers who
have completed 240 days of continuous service in
12 consecutive months.
13. On careful scrutiny of the Bio-data Form/
Certificate issued by the Management for the period 1991-
92 to 1998-99 proved by the workman as Exhibit-I and
Exhibit- 1(1) the enclosures of Writ Appeal No.26/2002
marked as Exhibit-6, it appears that the workman has not
completed 240 days in 12 consecutive month in any of the
years from 1991-92 to 1998-99. The history Card of casual
workers for the purpose of making bonus for the
accounting year from 1995-96 to 2000-01 also shows that
the workman has not completed 240 days in any of the
years. The Management on the other hand, vehemently
objecting the contention of the workman took the plea that
2840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman was engaged as contingent/casual worker
and the seismic survey is conducted from the month of
November to June and the work is purely seasonal one,
rain is the greatest hindrance and the job was purely
temporary and as such the workman never worked for 240
days and this contention has been supported by the
Management witness No.l.
14. In course of their argument Mr. P.B.Choudhury,
Learned Advocate for the Management submitted that
onus is on the part of the workman to prove that he had
worked 240 days in a year and the Hon'ble Division Bench
of Gauhati High Court has been pleased to shift the burden
of proving 240 days in a year upon the Management of
ONGC in Writ Appeal which was challenged by the
Management before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.1909/2005 in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to set
aside the judgment of the Hori'ble Gauhati High Court with
direction that in a case, dispute is raised between the
appropriate Government which shall refer the matter to the
concerned Tribunal for adjudication. In this regard,
Mr. Choudhury relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer -Vs- S.T.Hadimani,
(2002) 3 SCC 25; In Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar
Mill Ltd. -Vrs-State of Rajasthan and another (2004) 8 SCC
161: and In M.P. Electricity Board-Vs-Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC
246; and Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. -Vs-Sowaran Singh
(2005) 8 SCC 48l. In all these cases the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to hold that where the workman's
claimed that he had worked for more than 240 days in the
year preceding termination it is for the workman to adduce
evidence apart from examining himself or filing Affidavit,
to prove the said factum and such evidence may be in the
form of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his
appointment or engagement for that year to show that he
had worked with the employer for 240 days. From the record
produced by the workman along with Exhibit-6 it transpires
that the workman worked for 191, 210, 215, 229, 236, 237,
235, 229, 217, 226, 227, 227, 227, 228, 228, 229 during the
year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986- 87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90,
1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96,
1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively.
Although the workman took the plea that he was engaged
by the Management about 8 to 10 days prior to starting of
the work of seismic survey but those days of work were
not counted. The evidence on record shows that the Bio-
data Form was duly prepared and signed by the workman
and there is nothing on record to show that the workman
had raised any protest against non inclusion of the days of
work which he did prior to starting of the seismic survey
work although in his cross-examination he said that he has
submitted protest letter but it was not entertained and that
he was forced to put his signature on the Bio- data Form.
There is neither any documentary nor any trustworthy oral
testimony in support of his contention that he had raised
any complaint either to the Management or has sought for
any legal action and hence, this plea is found to be not
acceptable.
15. The workman in his evidence categorically
mentioned that he was working as Motor Mechanic
Assistant and he was engaged about 8/10 days prior to the
starting of the seismic survey and the Management did
not maintain any Attendance Register for his 8 to 10 days
extra duty but paid the wages and on his pursuance in one
occasion he was allowed to put his signature by one party
'Chief namely NNB Naidu, who directed the Store Keeper
Sir Binoy Kumar Das to maintain the Attendance Register
for the said period, but after transfer of Mr. Naidu &
Mr. Das this system of maintaining of Attendance Register
was discontinued. The workman also mentioned that said
Mr. NNB Naidu & Mr. B.K.Das who are still in service, are
the witnesses who could well establish the fact that he was
engaged by the Management prior to 8 to 10 days starting
of seismic survey work but they were not examined by the
Management. This contention of the workman is found
not relevant since he knows that Mr. NNB Naidu and
Mr. B.Das were the best witnesses why he refrained from
praying before the Court for examining the said two
witnesses in order to establish his plea and it is the
established principle of law that the onus is on the party to
prove the fact who assert it. Thus it is clear that the plea of
the workman is not found to be established. Further the
argument categorically mentioned that he had been working
as Motor Mechanic Assistant but he did not produce any
document in support of his qualification which hampers
the credibility of the testimony of the workman.
16. Mr. D. K. Biswas, Learned Advocate for the
workman submitted that the Management of ONGC called
the departmental candidate/contingent workers who have
completed 240 days of work for appearing in the interview
for appointment to the Post of Junior Security Guard
including the workman in terms of the Circular dated 6-9-99
vide Memorandum No.AGT/RNP/Sccu/99 dated 3.l.2000
and his eligibility to appear before the Test is sufficient
enough to hold that he had worked for 240 days, while in
their W.S. the Management categorically mentioned that
the said memorandum was issued in favour of the workman
due to bona-fide mistake and the authority who issued the
memorandum had no knowledge of the document
maintained by the Management at Calcutta Office regarding
employment of contingent/casual workers engaged for
the field work; and that the recruitment and the Promotion
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2841
Office at Agartala maintained no records of the working of
the field parties but they erroneously issued letter of
interview to all persons employed in the Field parties in
Tripura and in view of this mistake no action was taken on
the interview letter nor was any recruitment was made
thereafter on the basis of the said interview letter. There is
also nothing on record to show that action was taken by
the Management of ONGC on the Memorandum regarding
appointment of Security Guard. Thus the workman can not
take advantage of the aforesaid bonafide mistake.
Mr. Biswas, Learned Advocate for the workman
raised another argument that in the Writ Appeal No.26/
2002 the Management was directed by the Hon'ble High
Court to produce Attendance Register of the relevant year
i.e. 1990-91 and 1991-92 and in response the Management
produced many other documents besides the Attendance
Register which was categorically ordered and hence the
Appeal failed. The failure to produce the Attendance
Register which was in the custody of the Management, is
sufficient enough to presume that the workman completed
240 days of work and in order to suppress the truth the
Management withhold the said document rather they
took a casual stand that the Attendance Register was lost
and FIR lodged at the relevant time but no evidence was
led to that effect. In support of his argument Mr. Biswas
relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down in R.M.Yellatti ---Vrs---- Asst. Executive Engineer,
reported in 2006 (1) SCC 106 that a Court of law even in a
case where provisions of the Evidence Act apply, may
presume or may not presume that if a party despite
possession of the best evidence had not produced the
same, it would have gone against his contentions; the
matter, however, would be different where despite direction
by a Court the evidence is withheld, presumption as to
adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always
optional and one of the factors which is required to be
taken into consideration is the background of the facts
involved in the lies; and as such, the presumption is not
obligatory because notwithstanding the intentional non-
production, other circumstances may exist upon which such
intentional non-production may be found to be justified
on some reasonable grounds.
17. Mr. P.B. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the
Management, resisting the argument of the learned
Advocate for the workman pointed out that in Para-6 & 7
of their Written Statement they had made it clear that the
Attendance Register for the month of November &
December, 1990 had been missing and in this regard an FIR
was lodged on 25-5-91 and in support of this averment the
Management has furnished extract copy of Kakraban Police
Out Post G.D.Entry No.590 dated 25-5-91 wherein it was
recorded that the G.P. 27 Party, ONGC has submitted that
the Attendance Register of Casual Workers of the Party for
the period November and December,1991 had been lost
and a copy of the said F.I.R. and extract from the Kakraban
Police Out Post G..D. Entry No. 590 dated 25-5-91 along
with a forwarding letter dated 19.5.2006 has been annexed
with the W.S. as well as the written objection to the
application submitted by the workman calling for record
from the custody of the Management. He also pointed out
that the workman annexed the photo copies of some pages
of Attendance Register in the Writ Petition before the
Hon'ble High Court and hence, it is apparent that the
workman was a party to the illegal removal of the
Attendance Register from the premises of the Respondent:
as such, the onus to produce the Attendance Register
before the Tribunal is on the workman and not on the
Respondent. Mr. Choudhury also added that
notwithstanding the above position, the Bio-data Form
submitted by the workman, the certificate issued by the
Corporation and the Bonus Register of the workmen clearly
established that at no point of time that the workman
worked for 240 days or more during 12 consecutive months.
In this connection Mr. Choudhury also relied upon the
ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad -Vs-Shri Niwas,
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195 wherein it was held : "A Court
of law even in a case where provisions of Indian Evidence
Act apply may presume or may not presume that if the
party despite possession of the best evidence had not
produced the same, it would have given against his
contention. The matter would be different where despite
direction by Court, the evidence is withheld. Presumption
is to adverse inference for non- production of evidence is
always optional and one of the factors which is required to
be taken into consideration is the background of facts
involved in the lie. The presumption, thus, is not obligatory
because notwithstanding the intentional non-production
other circumstances, may exist upon which such intentional
non-production may be found to be justifiable on some
reasonable grounds. In the instant case the Industrial
Tribunal did not draw any adverse inference against the
appellant. It was within its jurisdiction to do so particularly
having regard to the nature of evidence adduced by the
respondent".
18. In this connection Mr. Choudhury also referred
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.M.Yellathi ---
Vs-The Asstt. Executive Engineer reported in JT 2005 (9)
SCC 340. Since the Attendance Register was found to be
lost from the premises of the Management as it appears
from the pleadings along with supporting documents
produced by them and the other relevant supporting
documents namely the Bio-data Form, History Card for the
purpose of making bonus in respect of the workman and
the certificate issued by the ONGC in favour of the workman
(Exhibit- l ), but no where supported the plea of the
workman that he had worked 240 days within
12 consecutive month. Although the workman alleged that
he resisted to put his signature on the Bio-data Form and
2842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the History Card regarding bonus due to threatening and
pressure by the Management he was compelled to put his
signatures on those documents but he did not file any
complaint before the Police on that ground. He also said
that he informed the matter to the Management in writing
but that was not entertained rather it was damaged in his
presence. In order to establish this averment the workman
has neither produced any documentary evidence nor any
oral testimony in his favour. In view of the above
circumstances and having regard to the argument raised
by both the parties and as well as the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to take any adverse
opinion against the Management and to held that the
workman worked for 240 days in a year due to non-
production of the Attendance Register alone by the
Management.
19. In view of my above discussion and the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, I find no force in
the argument raised by the Learned Advocate for the
workman. Hence, I find no hesitation to opine that the
workman has not been able to establish that he had worked
continuously for more than 240 days in consecutive
12 months under the Management of ONGC. Accordingly,
this issue is decided in negative.
20. As regards the issue whether the Settlement
arrived at on 27/28-01-2001 is binding on the workman, the
workman has stated in his evidence that the said Settlement
by which a few hundred casual worker's service was
terminated, was executed violating the law and it was not a
Tripartite Settlement as the Conciliation Officer did not
play any role in the proceeding, he only remained present;
and as it was a settlement with regard to the casual workers
of 180 days category for which the workman did not
belong to and his name was included either by mistake or
by motive. In course of argument Mr. D.K. Biswas submitted
that the Tripartite Settlement was arrived at regarding the
contingent workers of 180 days category and as the
workman Shyamal Bhowmik is not within the said category
this Tripartite Settlement which is not binding on the
workman. While the Management pleaded that the Tripartite
Settlement was entered into by and between the ONGC
Ltd. and the Leaders of the recognized Unions which
represented the majority of the contingent/casual workers
and the said Settlement was signed by the Chief Geo-
Physicists Mr. R. Mazumder; Superintendent, Geo-
Physicists Mr. R. C. Mishra, on behalf of the Management;
Sri Sunil Rudra Paul, General Secretary, ONGC Din Mazdoor
Union (CITU); Sri Lokesh Dey, Vice-President of the ONGC
Shramik Union (INTUC). Two other witnesses signed the
Memorandum of Settlement and finally it was signed by
Mr. T. P. Ojha, Regional Labour Commissioner (C),
Guwahati: and by this Settlement out of 339 workers, 271
workers took away the benefits flowing out of the said
Tripartite Settlement. In this connection the Management
Witness Nos. 1 Mr. Sanjib Sett and Management Witness
No.2 Mr. R.C. Mishra who are one of the signatories to the
said settlement on behalf of the Management categorically
stated that there was a dispute with regard to non-
engagement of contingent/casual workers for the year
2001/2002 which led to an elaborate conciliation proceeding
and a Tripartite Settlement was entered into between the
Management and the Leaders of the recognized Unions
which represented the majority of the contingent/casual
workers and the said Settlement was arrived at after the
conciliation in presence of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (C), Guwahati, This testimony of MW.2 is
found to be untwisted & unshaken.
21. Mr. P.B.Choudhury, on the other hand
vehemently opposed the submission of the Learned
Advocate for the workman and argued that as per provision
of Section 18(3) of the I.D.Act a Settlement arrived at in
course of conciliation proceedings under the Industrial
Dispute Act,1947 or an Arbitration Award in case where a
Notification has been issued under Sub-Section (3) of
Section 10A or an Award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal, which has become enforceable shall be
binding on all the parties to the Industrial Dispute; all the
parties summoned to appear in the proceeding as parties
to the dispute; the heirs, successors or assignees in respect
of the establishment to which the dispute relates; and where
a party referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of the said
Section is composed of workmen, all persons who were
employed in the establishment or part of the establishment,
as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date
of the dispute, and all persons who subsequently become
employed in that establishment or part.
In this connection Mr. Choudhury, referred the
case of ITC Limited Workers Welfare Association and
another -Vs-Management, ITC Ltd. and another reported
in (2002) 3 SCC 411, wherein it was held that in answering
the Reference the Industrial Adjudicator has to keep in the
forefront of his mid the settlement reached U/s 12(3) of the
Industrial Act; once it is found that the terms of the
Settlement operate in respect of the dispute raised before
it, it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to ignore the
Settlement or even belittle its effect by applying its mind
independent of the settlement unless the settlement is
found to be contrary to the mandatory provisions of the
Act or unless it is found that there is non-conformance to
the norms by which the settlement could be subjected to
judicial scrutiny; and an individual employee cannot seek
to wriggle out of the settlement merely because it does not
suit him. Mr. Choudhury, further relied on the decision in
National Engineering Industries Ltd. -Vs-State of Rajasthan
published in (2000) 1 SCC 371 that a settlement arrived at in
course of conciliation proceeding with a recognized
majority Union will be binding on all workmen of the
establishment even belong to the Minority Union which
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2843
had objected to the same; the recognized union having the
majority members is expected to protect the legitimate
interest of the labourers and enter into a settlement in the
best interest of the labourers; and this is with the object to
hold the settlement reached with the active assistance of
the conciliation Officer; and to distinguish an individual
employee or a minority Union from scuttling the settlement;
and when a settlement is arrived at during the conciliation
proceeding it is binding on the members of the workers
Union as laid down by Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial
Dispute Act. In the instant case the workman Shyamal
Chandra Bhowmik relied upon the Tripartite Settlement
arrived at on 27/28-01-2001 between the Management and
the Union in presence of the Conciliation Officer,
Mr. T. P.Ojha, and on the strength of the said Settlement
out of 339 workers 271 workers took away the benefit
flowing out of the said tripartite settlement. The workman
witness No. l, S.C. Bhowmik although in his evidence
admitted the said tripartite settlement, disputed the
settlement on the ground that he was not one of the
signatories to the said settlement as he does not belong to
180 days workers category. The workman in his claim
statement mentioned that the said tripartite settlement was
challenged in the court of law & the settlement was found
invalid. But the workman has not been able to substantiate
his pleading producing the relevant document and the
decision/order of the proper legal forum. The workman
himself exhibited the tripartite settlement vide Exhibit-2
without enclosing the list of casual workers of G.P.27, while
the Management witness has proved the same being the
Annexure-2 wherein it is revealed from the list of casual
workers that the workman S.C.Bhowmik was one of the
signatories to the said settlement as it reflected at Serial
No.SS of the said list of casual workers. The workman
witness Sri S.C. Bhowmik in his evidence on Affidavit
categorically mentioned that his name was included in the
list but he was not a member of any Union nor can be
included under 180 days category. While in course of his
cross-examination he mentioned that he was compelled to
put his signature on the list of workers enclosed with
(Exhibit-2/Annexure-2 submitted by the Management in
course of evidence), but he did not file any complaint before
the Police on the ground that he was threatened by the
Management. He also said that he informed this matter to
the Management in writing but that was damaged in his
presence. But the workman has not been able to
substantiate his contention adducing reliable evidence.
22. From my discussion on the Issue No. l it is clear
that the workman has not been able to prove that he has
worked for 240 days in 12 consecutive months in any year.
As such, it can safely be held that the workman was within
the category of 180 days of works at the relevant time of
settlement and he has failed to substantiate his plea that
he was not one of the members of 180 days category
workers and that he was not present at the time of
conciliation held in presence of the Unions, Management
and the Conciliation Officer. In view of my above
discussion and having regard to the submission of learned
Advocates for both the parties as well as the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned to above, I am of
the opinion that the workman Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik
is bound by the Tripartite Settlement arrived at on
27/28-01-2001 held between the Management, Unions and
the Conciliation Officer.
23. Accordingly, this issue is decided in affirmative
against the workman.
Under the above circumstances it is held that the
workman Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik is not entitled to any
relief as claimed.
24. In the result, the Reference is decided on merit
without awarding any relief.
Send the Award to the Government as per
procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
31st day of July, 2013.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1096-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ vks lh ,y
(vle vk;y fMoht+u) fMxcksbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 10&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&30011@69@2012&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/ 2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of IOCL (Assam Oil Division) Digboi and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-30011/69/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
2844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present : Sri L.C. Dey, M.A.,LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No. 21 of 2013.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
Sri Dhrubajyoti Borborah represented by The President,
AOC Labour Union, Digboi.
Vrs
The Management of IOCL (Assam Oil Division) Digboi.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman . : Smt. A. Bhattacharjyya, Advocate.
Mr. P. Kalita, Advocate.
For the Management
: Mr. S.N. Choudhury,
Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Jahid, Advocate,
Mr. A. Sarma, Advocate
Date of Award: 23.09.13.
AWARD
1. This Reference is arising out of an Industrial
Dispute existing between the employer in relation to the
Management of IOCL (Assam Oil Division), Digboi and
their workman, which was referred by the Ministry of Labour
& Employment, New Delhi vide their Order No. L- 30011/
69/2012-IR(M) dated 01.02.2013 in respect of the matter
specified in the Schedule mentioned below.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of IOCl
(Assam Oil Division), Digboi, in dismissing the
services of Shri Dhrubajyoti Borborah w.e.f. 30.6.2011,
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference notices were served
upon both the parties. Accordingly they appeared and
prayed for adjournment for filing W.S./claim statement.
The workman was represented by their General Secretary,
Assam Oil Division Labour Union, Digboi, who prayed for
adjournment for filing claim statement. The Management
also appeared through their learned Advocate and prayed
for adjournment for allowing them to submit their W.S.
after filing of the claim statement by the workman. In the
mean time Mr. T. Hazarika, President, AOC Labour Union,
Digboi appeared and submitted petition written by the
workman stating that he has been engaged in some other
establishment, so he is not interested to proceed with the
Reference and requested to withdraw the proceeding.
Thereafter the workman was directed to appear before
this Tribunal personally and to prove the content of the
petition.
3. The workman Sri Dhrubajyoti Borborah appeared
and submitted another petition with prayer for allowing
him to withdraw the proceeding. Accordingly the workman
was examined and discharged.
4. I have perused the petition submitted by the
workman along with his statement made on oath before
this Tribunal. I have also heard the workman and the learned
Advocate for the Management.
5. The workman in his petition categorically mentioned
that he is not interested in the case as he has been engaged
in suitable post in some other establishment and he has
also informed the Union not to proceed with the case. In
his statement the workman mentioned that he has been
working as Sales and Distribution Operator at LPG Filling
Plant, Chekmai in the State of Manipur with effect from
1.12.2006 till 30.6.2011. For some unknown reason he was
discharged from his service by the Management of IOCL,
Assam Oil Division, Digboi on 30.6.2011 and hence, he
raised this dispute. After loss of his job, for earning of his
livelihood the workman has started Tea Plantation and now
he is self sufficient and he is interested to continue his
present occupation. As such, the workman expressed that
he is not willing to proceed with this Reference for which
he submitted petition through Mr. T. Hazarika, Union
President with prayer for withdrawal of the proceeding. He
has also prayed for allowing him to withdraw the proceeding
without any cost as he is very poorman and he is not in a
position to proceed with the case. The workman has proved
his petition marked as Exhibit-1 wherein Exhibit-1(1) is his
signature.
6. From the above discussion it appears that the
workman is not at all interested to proceed with this
Reference and prayed for withdrawing the proceeding.
The Management also raised no objection to the prayer for
withdrawal of the Reference.
7. In view of the above circumstances, for the ends
of justice, the prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the workman
is allowed to withdraw the dispute without any cost.
Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
23rd day of September, 2013, at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2845
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1097-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj rfeyukMq
feujYl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 93@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&29011@57@2005&vkbZ vkj (,e),
la- ,y&29011@67@2005&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/ 2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-29011/57/2005-IR (M),
No. L-29011/67/2005-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 3rd January, 2014
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 93/2009
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. and their
workman)
BETWEEN
The Secretary
Tamilnadu Kanima Niruvana Uzhiyar Sangam
V.P. Chindan Ninaivagam
Office Rajaganapathy Nagar
Mettur Dam-1
...1st Party/Petitioner Union
AND
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd.
Kamarajar Salai
Chepauk
Chennai-5
....2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/ :
M/s V. Ajoy Khose,
Petitioner Union
S. Manoharan, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ :
Mr. S. Sekar, T. R. Sathiya
Respondent
Mohan, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-29011 /57/2005-IR(M) &
L-29011/67/2005-IR(M) dated 28.10.2009 referred the
following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
‘‘Whether the action of the management of
Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. in not extending the VRS
benefits/Ex-gratia to the workmen working in quarries
who retired/retires under VRS after 30.07.2002 as
provided under G.O. 158 dated 13.05.2002 and also
reducing the minimum guaranteed ex-gratia amount
from 1.5 lakhs to 1 lakh is just and legal? What relief
the workers concerned are entitled to and from which
date?’’
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 93/2009 and issued notice to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter
Statement respectively.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these :
The Petitioner is a Trade Union under the Trade
Unions Act and is espousing the cause of workmen
employed by the Respondent. The Respondent had
introduced and implemented VRS Scheme to the staff and
workmen as determined by the Government of Tamil Nadu
by various Govt. orders issued from time to time. By order
dated 30.06.1991 employees in the Public Sector
Undertakings who have completed 40 years of age or 15
years of service are eligible to opt for Voluntary Retirement
Scheme (VRS). On representation by the Respondent the
Government made relaxation in the scheme by order dated
19.05.1998. The Respondent, instead of sending workmen
who came forward only to go on VRS compelled a large
number of workmen to go on VRS by threatening them. On
13.05.2002, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu issued a new order
regarding VRS for all Public Sector Undertakings owned
by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu. The Respondent allowed Clerical
2846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and other staff working in their office to opt for Voluntary
Retirement on the basis of the order dated 13.05.2002 and
extended the ex-gratia benefits provided in the Government
order to them. Govt. order dated 13.05.2002 does not
distinguish between staff and workmen. In spite of that,
the Respondent was asking the workmen to opt for VRS
on the basis of the order dated 13.06.1991 and the circular
of June 1998. The action of the Respondent in not extending
the benefits of the Government dated 13.05.2002 to the
workmen is illegal and unjust. The Central Union of
Petitioner had written to the Respondent requesting them
to extend the benefits covered by the order of 13.05.2002 to
the workmen also. In view of this, the petitioner had raised
the Industrial Dispute. Since the Conciliation Officer could
not settle the matter, he had submitted failure report. Since
the issue was not referred for adjudication the petitioner
had filed a Writ Petition and this was allowed. It was
accordingly the matter was being referred to this Court. An
order may be passed holding that the action of the
Respondent in not extending VRS benefits to the workmen
working in quarries who retired or retires after 30.07.2002
and reducing the ex-gratia amount from Rs. 1.50 lakhs to
Rs. 1.00 lakh is unjustified and illegal and directing the
Respondent to extend the benefit to all the workers who
retired or retires after 30.07.2002.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows.
The Govt. order dated 19.05.1998 regarding VRS is
exclusively for the workers of the Respondent. This was
implemented as per the guidelines therein. No voluntary
retirement scheme was available for the Staff and Officers
of the Respondent till 13.05.2002. It is incorrect to state
that the Respondent had forced the workmen to opt for
VRS. The Govt. had subsequently issued orders revising
the VRS benefits at the enhanced rate in respect of all the
employees of Public Sector Undertakings who are drawing
scales of pay as per the Govt. order dated 13.05.2002. The
Respondent had implemented the above Govt. order in
respect of its Officers and Staff who are drawing pay at the
scale referred to in the order. Since the benefits as per order
of 13.05.2002 were more than as per the Govt. order dated
19.05.1998, representation was made to the Govt. for
permission to extend the benefit of the order dated
13.05.2002 to the workers also. The Govt. had issued orders
stating that the minimum guaranteed ex- gratia payment of
Rs. 1.50 lakhs is in respect of the Staff and Officers drawing
pay of the scale of Rs. 2550/- and above only and that
workers are not covered by Govt. order ated 13.05.2002. In
order to help the workers, the Respondent had made a
proposal to the Govt. and the Govt. had issued an
amendment order on 22.04.2004 revising the ex- gratia
amounts which was implemented in respect of workers w.e.f.
22.04.2004 substituting the norms by order dated
19.05.1998. The Respondent had again requested the Govt.
to revise and raise the minimum guaranteed amount to
Rs. 1.50 lakhs against Rs. 1.00 lakh and also give effect to
the amendment w.e.f. 13.05.2002. The Govt. had issued
orders on 17.09.2004 stating that minimum guaranteed ex-
gratia of Rs. 1.50 lakhs is payable to the category of
employees who are staff and officers of public undertakings
who are drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and
above and that the workers category are not covered by
the said Govt. order. In the above circumstances, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. The evidence in the case of consists of documents
marked as Exs.W1 to Ex.W16 on the side of the petitioner
and Ex. M 1 to Ex. M5 on the side of the Respondent. No
oral evidence was tendered by either side.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the workmen working in the quarries of
the Respondent who retired or retires after 30.07.2002
are entitled to the VRS benefit and ex-gratia amount
as provided by GO No. 158 dated 13.05.2002?
(ii) What is the relief to which the workers are
entitled ?
The Points
7. The Petitioner is a Trade Union, espousing the
cause of workers working in the quarries of the Respondent.
The Tamil Nadu Govt. had introduced VRS Scheme by order
dated 13.06.1991 and this was made applicable to the
workers working under the Respondent. Several of the
workers had opted for VRS and had obtained the benefits
as provided under Order dated 13.06.1991. Subsequently,
relaxation was made in the VRS by order dated 19.05.1998.
By this relaxation the workmen were able to go on voluntary
retirement without reference to their age or service and
benefits were payable to workmen on the basis of the VRS.
8. The Govt. had issued another order on 30.07.2002
regarding voluntary retirement. As per the circular dated
30.07.2002 issued in connection with the Govt. order dated
13.05.2002 two months wages for every completed year of
service or one month's wages for every year of remaining
service or Rs. 4.20 lakhs if the salary is Rs. 10,000 or above
is payable. In case of those drawing salary between
Rs. 6,500 and 10,000 the amount payable is Rs. 2.75 lakhs
and for those having salary between Rs. 2,500 and 6500 the
amount payable is Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The benefit that is available
on the basis of the Govt. order dated 13.05.2002 and the
circular dated 30.07.2002 seems to be more when compared
with earlier govt. order dated 13.06.1991 regarding voluntary
retirement scheme. The grievance of the petitioner is that
the Respondent who had allowed the Clerical and other
Staffs working in its office to go on voluntary retirement
on the basis of the order dated 13.05.2002 and the circular
dated 30.07.2002 had refused to extend the, benefits of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2847
these orders to its workers. According to the counsel for
the petitioner, the Govt. order dated 13.05.2002 does not
distinguish between the workers and the clerical and other
staff working under the Respondent. According to the
counsel the Respondent should have extended the benefit
under the 2002 scheme to the workers also in which case
they would have obtained more amount towards ex-gratia
payment. It is argued by the counsel that the Respondent
had discriminated the workers by refusing to extend the
benefit of the scheme to them.
9. The contention of the Respondent is that the
benefit of Govt. order dated 13.05.2002 and the circular in
connection with this are available only to the Clerical and
other staff of the Respondent and not to the workers.
According to the Respondent though VRS was
implemented in respect of the workers by order dated
13.06.1991 no such scheme was available for Clerical and
other staff until dated 30.07.2002 on which date they were
also brought under VRS.
10. A perusal of the documents on either side would
show that the claim that is made on behalf of the workers is
without basis. All the concerned Govt. orders are produced
and are available for perusal. Ex.W1 is the first Govt. order
by which VRS was introduced by the Govt. By Ex.W2
some amendment was made to Ex.W1 order and the benefit
available was enhanced. The only question that is to be
considered is whether the Govt. order dated 13.05.2002
and connected circular are applicable to the workers also.
The order is marked as Ex.W5. In this order it is stated that
committee on public enterprise had suggested suitable
modification in the existing VRS for the employees of State
Public Undertakings in the light of revised VRS announced
for employees of Central Public Sector Undertakings. By
the order, the State Public Sector Undertakings are classified
into two and the employees coming under class (a) are
classified into three and ex-gratia amount payable to the
employees of each class is fixed. However, in justification
of the claim made by the petitioner it is to be pointed out
that Ex.W5 order refers-to all the previous orders in respect
of VRS and states that it is in partial modification of
previous orders that the order is being issued. However,
from the subsequent orders and clarifications issued by
the Govt. it is clear that the beneficiaries of Ex.W5 order are
only clerical and other staff and that the workmen are not
covered by the said order. In fact, Ex.M1, the Govt. order
dated 19.05.1998 specifies that the order of 1991 regarding
voluntary retirement scheme is in respest of workmen only.
Ex. M 1 is an order of relaxation of the terms for voluntary
retirement. Ex.M5 is the letter from the Secretary to the
Govt. in reply to the request for fixing minimum guaranteed
amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to the workers who opt for
voluntary retirement scheme also. It is explained in this
that the minimum guaranteed amount of ex-gratia as per
Ex.W5 order is for the category of employees of public
sector undertakings i.e. staff and officers drawing pay in
scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and above only and that the workers
category are not covered by the said Govt. order. It is further
stated in this that the minimum guaranteed amount of
Rs. 1.00 lakh made available for workers of the Respondent
has been made applicable to all the workers category in
public sector undertakings/cooperatives also and that this
is the general stand adopted by the Govt. for all the workers
who are sent on VRS and so the request cannot be
complied with. When the very scheme of 2002 is not made
applicable to the workers category it is idle for the petitioner
to contend that the benefits under the scheme should
have been extended to the workers also. I find that the
claim put forth by the petitioner on behalf of the workers
under the Respondent is without basis. The petitioner is
not entitled to any relief.
11. The reference is answered against the petitioner.
(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the
3rd January, 2014).
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri K. Vijayan
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
13.06.1991
G.O. (D) No. 29
Ex.W2
07.03.1995
G.O. Ms. No. 165
Ex.W3
19.05.2008
G.O. 64 Industrial department
of Tamilnadu Government
Ex.W4
6/1998
Circular issued by TAMIN
based on G. O. 64
Ex.W5
13.05.2002
G.O. 158 Finance Department
of Tamilnadu Government
enhancing ex-gratia under VRS
Ex.W6
30.07.2002
Office Order of Tamil Nadu
giving VRS with enhanced ex-
gratia to clerical cadre
Ex.W7
01.10.2002
Representation of 1st Party to
extend the benefits of G.O. 158
to workmen also.
Ex.W8
11.05.2004
Circular to TAMIN extending
the benefits of G.O. 158 to
workmen, but with reduced
minimum guaranteed amount
2848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W9
02.08.2004
Dispute raised by 1 st Party
questioning the circular dated
11.05.2004 restricting the
benefits of VRS to workmen
Ex.W10
03.12.2004
Reply filed by TAMIN in the
conciliation
Ex.W11
-
Rejoinder of the 1 st Party to
the reply
Ex.W12
08.02.2005
Reply to rejoinder by TAMIN
Ex.W13
16.02.2006
Government declined to refer
the dispute
Ex.W14
23.02.2006
Ex.W15
13.07.2007
1st Party represented to the
Government with request to
refer
the
dispute
for
adjudication
Ex.W16
07.08.2009
Order in WP No. 37484/2007
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
19.05.1998
G.O. No. (3D) No. 64
Ex.M2
12.06.1998
Notice No. 17629/I R 1/97
Ex.M3
22.04.2009
Government letter No. 14420/
MME.1/2003-3
Ex.M4
11.05.2004
Circular No. 22219/IR1/03
Ex.M5
17.09.2004
Government letter No. 16126/
MME1/2004-2
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1098-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVhy vFkkWfjVh
vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM] bykgkckn ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 56@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 17&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&29011@11@2012&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1098.—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-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Steel Authority of India Limited,
Allahabad and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 17-3-2014.
[No. L-29011/11/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LNDUSTRLAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 56 of 12
Between
The General Secretary,
Steel Authority Stock Yard Mazdoor Sangh,
26/2, I.T.I. Colony, Sandawam Naini,
Allahbad.
And
The Branch Manager,
Steel Authority of India Limited,
Sales Branch Office,
22-A, Mayo Road,
Allahabad.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol,' New Delhi, vide
notification no. L- 29011/11/12- IR(M) dated 28.06.12, has
referred the dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Steel
Authority of India Limited regarding non-payment of dues
of additional welfare and safety allowance is legal and
justified? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled
to?
3. In the instant case after receipt of reference order
from the Ministry, repeated notices under registered post
have been issued to the Union raising the dispute, but
none appeared in the case from their side nor they filed any
claim statement. On the other hand opposite party
appeared and filed letter of authority.
4. Therefore, from the conduct of the Union it is
crystal clear that they are not interested in prosecuting
with the case, therefore, reference is bound to be decided
against them for want of pleadings and proof.
5. Therefore, reference is decided in th above terms
against the Union holding that the union is not entitled for
any relief pursuant present reference.
6. Reference is answered accordingly.
Dt. 18-03-13
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2849
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1099-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy
IykaV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
01@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&3&2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&29011@46@99&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/
2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
10-3-2014.
[No. L-29011/46/99-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRlAL TRlBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/1/2000
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
The Secretary,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
Rajhara Mines,
PO Dalli Rajhara,
Durg (MP)
.....Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Mines),
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai (CG)
Dy. General Manager (IOC),
Rajhara Mines of BSP,
PO Dalli Rajhara,
Durg (CG)
.... Management
AWARD
(passed on this12th day of February 2014 )
As per letter dated 14-12-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-29011/
46/99-IR(M) dated 14-12-99. The dispute under reference
relates to:
‘‘Whether the demand of Samyukta Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh Union for departmentalization of 13
casual drivers as per list annexed and providing
benefits to them retrospectively form the date when
the benefits were allowed to the DPR w.e.f. 31-5-96 is
justified? If so to what relief the workmen are
entitled?’’
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh Union filed
Statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/6. The case of Union is
that Bhilai Steel Plant is public undertaking and Government
company. It has several Iron Ore Manual Mines at Dalli
Rajhara Mahamaya. Those mines are known as Iron Ore
Manual Mines. Since inception operation in all those mines
were carried by contractor. In 1972, after great agitations
by Union for regularization, employment of contract
workers settlement was arrived. That workman will be
departmentalized and they will be called departmental piece
rated mazdoor. Remaining contractual workers would like
to for Labour Cooperative society may join such society.
Workman who would continue to like to work with
contractor will be permitted to work under different
contractors. That 13 Labour Cooperative societies were
formed. Those societies were awarded contract of raising
and sizing of Iron Ore in the Iron Ore Manual Mines.
Contracts were also awarded to few contractors for raising
and transportation of Iron Ore from Manual Mines. That it
was the job of permanent nature. If supply was not made
through contract labours, Bhilai Steel Plant would have
starved and the production would have been adversely
affected. That Bhilai Steel Plant achieved its rated capacity
but undertook further expansion of the Steel Plant from
one Million tonne to 2.5 million tonne, then to 4 million
tonne. It is further submitted that the raising, staking,
transportation of Iron Ore are work of perennial nature.
The labour cooperative society and contractor are carrying
such work since more than 3 decades. The management of
Bhilai Steel Plant treated them at par with DPR in matters of
wages, benefits. The settlement was arrived on 14-11-95
before the ALC, Raipur. Several workmen belonging to
different societies were departmentalized. However those
13 workers , very senior drivers were not departmentalized.
That those workers were allotted Personal Number, CPF
Number. They were also subjected to medical examination
and found fit, they were left from departmentalization. On
such ground, all 13 drivers working with the contractors
are praying for their departmentalization. The names of
those 13 employees are shown in the list received alongwith
order of reference.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/4. Material contentions of Union are denied. Management
2850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
denied that from inception in mining manual mines are
carried out through contractors. That some of the jobs are
attributed through contractor. The Union raised dispute
for departmentalization of contractual workmen.
Management entered in settlement to take contractual
workmen in terms of settlement. IInd party did not dispute
that in 1972, several cooperative societies were formed and
large number of workers joined such cooperative society
and some of them continued to work under different
contractors. It is denied that labour cooperative societies
and contractor if not executed job, Bhilai Steel Plant would
have suffered. The signing of settlement dated 14- 11-95 is
not disputed. However IInd party submits that it was agreed
that society and contract labour who were below age of 50
years as on 1-11-95 found medically fit would be
departmentalized. That both society and contract labour
who were above the age of 50 years as on 1-11-95 would
not be departmentalized, they were allowed to work with
cooperative societies. That the workmen were engaged as
casual labour with contractors. They cannot claim regular
society worker. It is denied that workmen were granted
CPF number. It is denied that any assurance was given to
the workman for departmentalizing their services. That in
view of Section 55(2) of Societies Act, the dispute under
I.D.Act is not tenable.
4. Workman/Union filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to
10/4 reiterating its contentions in Statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below :
(i) Whether the demand of
Partly in Affirmative
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor
Sangh Union for departmenta-
lization of 13 casual drivers as
per list annexed and providing
benefits to them retrospectively
from the date when the benefits
were allowed to the DPR w.e.f.
31-5-96 is iustified ?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?’’
REASONS
6. Union has raised dispute relating to his
departmentalization to 13 employees shown in the list
working with transport contractors as Drivers. The
settlement dated 14-11-95 is not disputed by Ilnd party for
departmentalization of contract labours. Workman
Deenuram filed affidavit of his evidence. He says that he
alongwith other drivers were working as drivers with
J.K.Contractors in Mahamaya Mines from 1984. He has
stated his Personal No. is 88206. In 1996 he alongwith other
drivers claimed regularization, medical examination was
carried on 25-11-96 but they were not regularized. That
Maniklal, Purushottam, Narayan, Girwar, Main Bahadur and
Kushanlal were appointed as regular driver. He himself,
Chhanulal, Dholuram, Soman, Abdul Khan,
Chandrashekhar, Kunturam and Radhelal were not
regularized. Shri Baluram and Rarnnath lad left service. In
his cross-examination, workman says that all those
13 workers were working at same point of time with the
societies. He claims ignorance about the settlement of 1995.
He admits that as per settlement of 1995, those workmen
who are not above 50 years were to be departmentalized.
That he was not departmentalized. That he is still working
with the contractor. 13 persons who were working with
J. K. Transport continue to work with J.K. Transports, their
wages are paid by contractor .
7. Witness No. 2 Chhanulal in his evidence says that
he alongwith 12 other workmen were working as driver.
They were called for interview. Medical examination was
conducted but they were not departmentalized. In his cross-
examination he says that Maniklal is appointed in Bhilai
Steel Plant one year before. That they got employment
through contractor of Bhilai Steel Plant. Appointment Letter
in writing was not given to him. President Union Mr.
Chakravorty had given him appointment by oral order. He
admits that list of 188 workers was prepared for
departmentalization. They were interviewed, medical
examination was conducted. The copy of settlement is
produced at Exhibit M-I.
8. The witness of the management Shri C.K.Bajpai in
his affidavit of evidence says that 13 casual drivers are not
senior. They are not entitled to departmentalization as per
settlement dated 14-11-95. The settlement is applicable
only to workers below the age of 50 years found medically
fit. In his cross-examination, management's witness says
that 13 casual drivers were not employee of IInd party. He
did not recollect names of society or contractor under
whom those employees were working. He was also unable
to tell when those workmen were employed. That those 13
workmen were not engaged by IInd party neither they
were employees of the contractor. The evidence of both
witnesses of Union that all 13 workers were working with
J.K.Transport. I find no reason to disbelieve them. The
question of seniority is not material while dealing with the
claim for departmentalization. The settlement M-1 which
has been admitted provides that the main feature of
selection criteria that persons to be departmentalized
should be below 50 years of age as on 1-11-95 subject to
the medical examination. The Bhilai Steel Plant management
at appropriate time invite application which are registered
in Form B Register. Such option once made will not be
allowed to be changed. Therefore the benefit of said
settlement cannot be restricted to only 188 employees.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2851
The evidence on record is cogent that those 13 employees
were working with J. K. Transport contractor in Mahamaya
Mines and they cannot be denied benefit of settlement
dated 14-11-95 (Exhibit M-I). Some of the employees have
left service, some of the employees are already appointed
in Bhilai Steel Plant. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No. l in partly Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Demand of Union for departmentalization of 13
drivers shown in the list is proper in respect of the
employees who are still working with the contractor.
(2) IInd party is directed to give benefit of settlement
dated 14-11-95 examining their age on 14-11-95 and
conducting medical examination. The benefit of
settlement be given to the employees found eligible
within the period of two months.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1100-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj uafnuh ekbal
fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 165@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&29011@58@98&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 165/ 99)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Nandini Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-29011/58/98-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/165/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. P ATLE
The President,
Khadan Shramik Sabha,
Nandini Mines,
PO Nandini Mines,
Durg (MP).
...Workman/Union
Versus
Mines Manager,
Nandini Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant,
PO Nandini Mines,
Durg (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 12th day of February, 2014 )
1. As per letter dated 20-4-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-29011/
58/98/IR(M) . The dispute under reference relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Nandini
Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant in deducting penal rent from
the salaries of S/Shri Taj Mohammad, Sudha Ram, Gauriah,
Prem Singh, Duklaha, Lakhan Lal and Dev Lal on the
allegation of subletting company's quarter without following
the procedure of standing order is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?’’
2. After receiving reference, notices were issues to
the parties. On behalf of workman, statement of claim is
submitted by Union at Page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist party
workman is that penal rent is deducted from salary of
employees of the quarter allotted to Bank. S/Shri Taj
Mohammad, Sudha Ram, Gauriah, Prem Singh, Duklaha,
Lakhan Lal and Dev Lal workmen submitted that the
quarters were allotted by company of different categories.
Workmen were in possession of the said quarters since
long. Abruptly notice were issued to the workmen alleging
subletting of the quarters. As a consequence concerned
workmen were also directed that penal rent would be
charged at Rs. 4000 per month from 7-10-97. The notice
was issued on 13-10-97 for deduction of penal rent. That
no opportunity was given to the workmen. Merely a notice
was given to the concerned workmen accusing them that
they have been subletting quarters. Before passing orders
of eviction or charging of penal rent from the concerned
workmen, no opportunity of hearing of any nature has
been given. That recovery of penal rent is initiated without
giving opportunity of hearing. It is arbitrary and illegal.
3. That service conditions of the workman are
covered by standing orders for the mines. As per the
standing order, the unauthorized subletting amounts to
major misconduct. Procedure is prescribed for holding
Departmental Enquiry. Such procedure was not followed
by the management. The recovery of penal rent is affected.
Ist party prays for refund of amount recovered from the
workman with 18 % interest.
2852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3. IInd party denies the material contentions of Union/
workmen. The allotment of quarter is not disputed. There
was specific order that one would not sublet the
accommodation to anybody without prior permission of
the State Manager. The undertaking of concerned workman
was also submitted. The breach of the undertaking
contemplates cancellation of allotment order, Debar from
future allotments, Liability of penal rents, departmental
disciplinary actions, legal action- Evictions as per law. The
concerned workmen have committed breach of rules
regarding house allotment. Penal rent has been charged
and recovered from their salary is legal. IInd party denies
that applicant workmen was not given notice of the
recovery. The notices were issued to the workmen for
removing unauthorized occupants. The concerned
workmen were also intimated recovery of penal rent from
salary. The recovery is legal following prescribed procedure
under standing orders of mine that issuing charge sheet
and holding enquiry doesnot arise. For imposing
punishment by way of Disciplinary action and recovery of
penal rent are separate issues. One cannot be linked with
another. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection
of claim.
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 Nandini Mines
of Bhilai Steel Plant in deducting
penal rent from the salaries of
S/Shri Taj Mohammad, Sudha
Ram, Gauriah, Prem Singh,
Duklaha, Lakhan Lal and Dev Lal
on the allegation of subletting
company's quarter without
following the procedure of
standing order is legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?’’
entitled to relief
claimed by them.
REASONS
6. Though legality of the recovery of penal rent is
challenged by workman through Union alleging hearing.
Recovery was enforced without giving opportunity of
hearing. No evidence is adduced by workman/Union.
Evidence of Ist party is closed on 16-9-09.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of
Mahadeo covering most of the contentions of IInd party
about workman subletting the quarters, penal rent was
recovered. As per norms fixed by the management regarding
plinth area, type of quarter, the witness of management
was not cross-examined. I find no reason to disbelieve his
evidence. Workman not participated in the reference
proceeding, not adduced any evidence in support of their
claim. Evidence of management's witness remained
unchallenged. Therefore I record my finding on Point No.1
in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Action of the management of Nandini Mines of
Bhilai Steel Plant in deducting penal rent from the
salaries of S/Shri Taj Mohammad, Sudha Ram,
Gauriah, Prem Singh, Duklaha, Lakhan Lal and Dev
Lal on the allegation of subletting company's quarter
without following the procedure of standing order is
legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled for refund of amount.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1101-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy
IykaV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
153@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&3&2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&29011@9@95&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 153/ 95)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-29011/9/95-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/95
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
The Secretary,
Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2853
Post Dalli Rajhara,
Distt. Durg (CG)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai,
Distt. Durg (CG)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th day of February 2014)
1. As per letter dated 25-29/8/95 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-29011/9/95-IR(Misc.). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai
Steel Plant in relation to their Iron Ore Mines at
Dallirajhara Distt Durg in not making payment of
arrears of enhanced DA w.e.f. 1-1-92 to S/Shri Manik
Lal and 13 others, drivers engaged by
M/s. Mahamaya Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Adarsh
Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti and Khadan
Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd. at Mahamaya Mines is
justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union submitted Statement of Claim
at Page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of Ist Party Union is that IInd party,
Bhilai Steel Plant has captive Iron Ore Mines at Dalli Rajhara
and Mahamaya in Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg. Rajhara mines
are mechanized mines, the Dalli mines are semi- mechanised
and Mahamaya Mines are manually operated. That Iron
Ore from Mahamaya Mines transported to Rajhara Dalli
mechanised mine is done departmentally and through
Labour Cooperative Society. Such Labour cooperative
society are contractors of the Bhilai Steel Plant within the
meaning of Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. There are 3
labour cooperative societies, who are engaged in raising
and transportation of Iron Ore from Mahamaya Mines to
Rajhara and Dalli Mechanised Mines. The names of those
societies are Mahamaya Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd.,
Adarsh Khadan Mazdoor Khadan Samiti Ltd., Khadan
Shramnik Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Workman in Mahamaya Iron
Ore Mines on the jobs of raising and transportation are
members of labour cooperative societies. 13 drivers
concerned with the dispute were working in Mahamaya
Iron Ore Mines for transporting Iron ore from Mahamaya
to Rajhara and Dalli Mines. The names of those 13 Drivers
are shown with their dates of appointment, names of the
societies employed them. In para-3 of the Statement of
claim, workman submits that Union had demanded payment
of DA at enhanced rates. The payment was not exceeded.
He names of drivers are recorded in Form B register. The
Drivers were engaged for work of raising, loading,
transportation by cooperative societies. Their wages are
fixed by Bhilai Steel Plant in Agreement with the Union.
The DA as per their demand was not paid. Ist party workman
prays that direction be issued to Bhilai Steel Plant for
payment of Rs. 9300/- for each of them and DA Rs. 337 per
month from 1-6-95.
3. Preliminary objection was submitted that as
proceeding under payment of wages act was filed by each
workman, the reference is not tenable. Preliminary objection
was rejected by my predecessor as per order dated 3-7-03
observing that the claim in present reference and
proceedings under P.W.Act were different. Principles of
resjudicata were not attracted.
4. Written Statement is filed at Page 12/1 to 12/7.
IInd party submits that the workman employed by various
contractors were awarded transport contract by
management of IInd party. The terms and conditions of
service including pay and allowance, other fringe benefits
are paid by contractor. Their exists no relationship of
employer- employee. The dispute is not tenable. The
necessary parties are not included. That the Union was
signatory with the list of 188 employees. After discussion,
it was clearly stated that list of 188 employees was final.
Union stopped from raising dispute to extend benefits to
the workman. The claim for recovery of Rs. 9300 towards
arrears and DA 337 from 1-6-95 is denied outright as the
benefit was restricted to only 188 employees shown in the
list. IInd party reiterates that contractor was liable for
payment of wages and other benefits to those employees.
Contractors are not impleaded as parties. IInd party is not
liable for the claim.
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
management of Bhilai Steel Plant
in relation to their Iron Ore Mines
at Dallirajhara Distt Durg in not
In Affirmative
making payment of arrears of
enhanced DA w.e.f. 1-1-92 to
S/Shri Manik Lal and 13 others,
drivers engaged by M/s.
Mahamaya Shramik Sahakari
Samiti Ltd. Adarsh Khadan
Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti and
Khadan Shramik Sahakari Samiti
Ltd. at Mahamaya Mines is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workmen is rejected.
2854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6. The claim of Union is for recovery of Rs. 9300
for all 13 employees working as Driver and DA Rs. 337 per
month from 1-6- 95. There is no dispute that all those 13
employees have filed individual proceedings under
Payment of Wages Act. Copies of those applications are
produced. The reading of Para-6 and prayer clause of the
application shows that recovery of Rs. 9300 , arrears and
DA Rs. 337 from 1-6-95 were sought to be recovered.
However while passing order dated 3-7-03, my predecessor
was impressed that claim in present reference and
application under Section 15 of P.W.Act were different.
The claims are identical in both the proceedings. Agreement
dated 15-6-95 is produced at Exhibit W-l. Amount of
Rs. 9300 was to be paid to contractors per workman in
respect of raising and composite workers, loaders, Drivers,
helpers and staff. engaged by them. The amount shall be
paid on production of acquaintance roll. The copies of
judgments in proceeding under Section 15 of the P. W. Act
are produced. In para-4 of the judgment, it is clearly stated
that as per order passed by the Court, amount of Rs. 9300
was already paid. Order was also passed for payment of
DA Rs. 337 per month but said amount was not paid. The
applications were rejected. Document Exhibit W-2 is
agreement dated 25-2-2002. The terms of settlement deals
with lump sum reimbursement of amount Rs. 13,500 on
production of acquaintance roll. It doesnot relate to the
claim of Ist party. In affidavit of evidence filed by
Shri Chhanulal in para-1, he has stated that as per order
passed by Labour Court, amount of Rs. 9300 for period
1-1-92 to 31-5-95 was paid. That claim for recovery of
Rs. 337 from 1-6-95 was pending before Labour Court. In
his cross-examination, Shri Chhanulal says that the different
wages paid to the Drivers Rs. 5000, 5200, 7200, per month.
All those employees were entitled for variable DA-
Rs. 337. Thus the recovery of amount Rs. 9300 for each of
13 employees and DA Rs. 337 from 1-1-95 were subject
matter. The proceeding under Section 15 of PW Act as per
evidence in cross-examination of workman, the Labour
Court had rejected their application. The appeal filed by
them is pending. The applicants cannot adopt second round
of litigation filing reference under Section -10 of I D. Act
when they have already filed proceeding under Section 15
under P.W. Act. That proceeding was decided by authority
under P.W. Act. The evidence of management's witness
Sameer Kumar and C.K.Bajpai supported the contentions
of management in Written Statement. Considering workman
had already filed proceeding under Section 15 and amount
Rs. 9300 was paid, their claim cannot be accepted. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. l in Negative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under.-
(1) The action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant
in relation to their Iron Ore Mines at Dallirajhara Distt
Durg in not making payment of arrears of enhanced
DA w.e.f. 1-1-92 to S/Shri Manik Lal and 13 others,
drivers is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workmen is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy
IykaV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
52@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&3&2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&26011@4@2007&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on
10-3-2014.
[No. L-26011/4/2007-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/52/08
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Working President,
Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Nandini,
Distt. Durg (C.G)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, Durg (C.G).
...Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2855
AWARD
(Passed on this 11th day of February, 2014)
1. As per letter dated 11-3-08 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-26011/4/2007-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates
to:
‘‘Whether the demand of Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor
Sangh (AITUC), Nandini, Distt. Durg (CG) for
upgradation of Smt. Anita Joseph, Nursing Sister,
P.No. 155157, Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant
from Grade S-5 to S-6 w.e.f. 31-3-2001 is justified? If
so, to what relief Smt. Anita Joseph is entitled ?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman failed to submit Statement of Claim.
She is proceeded exparte on 31-5-2011. IInd party filed
Written Statement. IInd party submits that Smt. Anita
Joseph was appointed as Nursing Sister S-5 from 13-1-97.
As per prevailing rules working in medical department for
upgradation, last 3 years confidential reports grading is
considered. That Anita Joseph was eligible for upgradation
to S-6 in 2001. She remained absent without intimation for
60 days during January to September 98. Because of her
unauthorized absence, showcause notice was issued on
20-10-98. Representation was received from workman.
Warning letter was issued to her on 28-11- 98. Workman
was given Grade S-6 w.e.f. 31-3-03. Workman is not entitled
to upgradation from 2001.
3. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My. findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the demand of
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor
Sangh (AITUC), Nandini.: Distt.
In Negative
Durg (CG) for upgradation of
Smt. Anita Joseph, Nursing
Sister, P. No. 155157, Nandini
Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant from
Grade S-5 to S-6 w.e.f. 31-3-2001
is justified ?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to Grade
S-6 as claimed by
her.
REASONS
4. Workman did not filed Statement of claim in support
of her claim. She has not participated in the reference
proceeding, no evidence is adduced on her behalf. In
Written Statement filed by the management, it is pleaded
that workman was absent from duty for 60 days without
intimation. Affidavit of evidence of Shri R.K.Shrivastava is
filed. said witness also says that for unauthorized absence,
workman was issued showcause notice and warning dated
28-11-98 and grading of the workman was poor. Screening
Committee had considered eligible of employees for higher
grade. Workman was given Grade S-6 from 31-3-01.
Evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged.
I find no reason to disbelieve his evidence. From the
evidence discussed above, workman is not entitled to
GradeS-6 from 31-3-01. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Negative.
5. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(l) Demand of Union for upgradation of Smt. Anita
Joseph, Nursing Sister, P.No. 155157, Nandini Mines of
Bhilai Steel Plant from Grade S-5 to S-6 w.e.f. 31-3-2001 is
not legal.
(2) Relief prayed by Union is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fjyk;al ykbiQ
bU'kqjUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksphu ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 13@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&17012@6@2011&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Reliance Life Insurance Company
Limited and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-17012/6/2011-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
2856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.D.SREEYALLABHAN, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding
Officer
(Tuesday the 31st day of December, 2013/10 th Pausha. 1935)
I. D. 13/2012
Workman :
Shri Libinson P P
Puthenpurackal,
Thekkan Malippuram, Azhekkal PO
Cochin - 682510
By Ady. Shri Biju Balakrishnan
Managements :
1. M/s. Reliance Li re Insurance Co. Ltd.
Reliance House No.6
6th Floor, Haddows Road,
Nungarnbakka
Chennai - 600006
2. The Regional Manager
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office,
Kadavanthara,
Cochin
This case coming up for final hearing on 19.12.2013
und Ihis Tribunal-curn-Labour Court on 31.12-2013 passed
the following :
AWA RD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 or the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 or 1947), the Government
of India, Ministry or Labour by its Order No-L-17012/6/
2011-IR(M) dated 03.03.2012 referred this industrial dispute
for adjudication to this tribunal .
The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the Management of Reliance
Insurance Company Limited, in terminating the
services of Shri Libinson P.P., Puthenpurackal, Sales
Manager No,70074826 of Coehin Branch vide order
dated 08.07.2010, is legal and justified? What relief
Shrt Libinson P.P. is entitled to?"
1. After appearance workman filed claim statement
alleging that he was appointed as Sales Manager/agency
in the grade E-2 in the Cochin Island Branch or the Industry
of the respondents on 02.05.2009, He was on probation for
a period or six months and thereafter he was absorbed as a
permanent employee. He was not assigned with any
managerial duties. He was discharging the duties of' an
employee as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
He is a workman coming within the purview or Section 2(s)
or the said Act. He was sincerely, discharging his duties
with dedication and there was no instance of any
disciplinary action against him throughout his tenure upto
02.06.2010. On 09.06.2010 he had received a show-cause
notice dated 03.06.2010 about incidents or cheque bounces,
he had given a reply stating that there were only two
incidents or cheque bounces of' a total sum of ` 30,000
and it was occurred from the side or the customers
recommended through the advisers for the financial year
2010-2011. It was happened due to the unexpected financial
difficulties of the customers and not due to the willful
negligence, latches, dereliction of duties or financial
indiscipline of the workman. Afterwards he had received a
letter dated 21.06.2010 Irorn the first respondent directing
him to produce the two customers to fix personal meeting
with the Branch Manager. They were produced before the
Branch Manager on 28.06.2010. But without considering
his explanation and the subsequent production or the two
customers his service was illegally terminated without
following the procedure provided under the Industrial
Disputes Act. Such a major penalty was imposed on him
without conducting a proper enquiry and also in violution
of the statutory procedure. No disciplinary action was
taken against some other employees in the case of cheque
bouncing. The issuance or the termination order is only
with the malafide intention to satisfy the Branch Manager
who was not in good terms with the workman. His wife and
three children, as well as his aged ailing mother are
depending on his income for their livelihood. Even though
he got several offiers from other companies for employment
he did not accept as he wanted to continue In the service
of' the respondents. After the receipt of' the termination
letter he has submitted a representation through his
personal-etail ID along with the planation submitted by
the above said two customers. As the service was illegally
terminated by the respondents they are to be directed to
reinstate him with full back wages.
4. In the joint written statement filed by the
respondents it is mainly contended that he was engaged
as a senior sales manager which is a managerial post and
his duties include recruitment & training of' insurance
advisers and supervise their work and hence he is not a
workman coming within the definition of' the Industrial
Disputes Act. He was also employed in a supervisory
capacity and his wages was much above ` 6,500 and for
that reason also he is not a workman under the Industrial
Disputes Act. It is also contended that he had responded
to the show-cause notice dated 03.06.2010 alter the time
limit fixed in the notice. He was given opportunity to bring
the customers and explain the incidents of cheque
bouncing. Even though sufficient opportunities were
afforded to him for producing the customers the same were
not utilized by him. The explanation offered by him was not
factually correct. His service was not terminated with any
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2857
malafide intention. He was not retrenched and hence the
claim is totally unsustainable.
5. Workman filed rejoinder refuting the contentions
in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in
the claim statement.
6. After posting the case for evidence managements
were continuously absenting without any representation
and hence were set ex-parte. In order to prove his case
workman was got examined as WW-1 and two witnesses
were examined as WW-2 and 3. Exts.W-1 to W-19 were got
marked. The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the workman comes within the definition
of ‘Workman ' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 ?
2. Whether his service with the management bank
was illegally terminated in violation of the provisions
contained in that Act ?
3. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?
7. Point No. l : It is mainly to be considered whether
the workman will come within the purview of the definition
under Section 2(s) or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
the maintainability itself' is challenged by the managements
in the written statement by contending that he is not a
workman as defined therein since he was employed in a
managerial and supervisory capacity with the salary of
more than ` 6,500 per mensem.
8. Workman joined as Sales Manager/agency in the
grade E-2 in the management bank and the same is
evidenced by the letter of appointment dated 02.05.2009
marked as Ext.W-1. For the purpose of considering whether
he is a workman coming within the purview of Section 2(s)
of the said Act it is convenient to quote the definition of
workman Section 2(s) which reads as follows :
'' workman' is defined as follows:
workman means any person (including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do any manual unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory
work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the
purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation
to an industrial dispute, includes any such person
who has been dismissed. discharged or retrenched
in connection with, or as a consequence of, that
dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, bill does not
include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950(45 of
1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)who is employed in the police service or as an
officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,
draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the
duties attached to the office or by reason of the
powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
managerial nature.
9. Herein it is to be pointed out that in sub-clause(iv)
ten thousand rupees was substituted for one thousand six
hundred rupees w.e.f, 15.09.2010 by Act 24 or 2010.
10. As far as the workman in this case is concerned
he was appointed as Sales Manager/agency in the grade
E-2 on 02.05.2009. His designation as Sales Manager by
itself is not sufficient for holding that he was engaged for
discharging rnanagerial duties. If he was employed mainly
in managerial or adrninistrative capacity he cannot be said
to be a workman in view or the exclusion of such an
employee as per clause (iii) of Section 2(s) of the said Act.
Since his termination of service was prior to 15.09.2010 he
cannot also be treated as a workman if he was employed
in a supervisory capacity and his wages was exceeding
` 1,600 per mensem.
11. Firstly it is to be considered whether he was
employed for discharging duties of managerial or
administrative in nature. Clause 7 of Ext. W-1 specifies the
duties and responsibilities to be discharged by him, Clause
7(i) is relevant and the same is extracted below:-
"Your duties are entirely supervisory/managerial in
nature and the Company will expect you to work
with a high standard of initiative, efficiency and
economy and encourage and motivate people under
you to achieve optimum output. You will perform,
observe and confirm to such duties, diretions and
instructions assigned or communicated to you by
the company and those in authority over you".
12. As per the letter or appointment he was employed
for discharging the duties entirely supervisory/managerial
and hence he is not. a workman as defined under Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was an attempt
on his part to prove his claim that he is a workman under
the said Act by making a plea that he was not discharging
managerial duties to claim the benefit under the provisions
or the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a plea cannot be
accepted in view of the nature of the duties specified in
Ext.W-1. Even if he was discharging other duties which
were not managerial in nature then also it cannot be said
that he was not employed for discharging managerial duties.
As he has to discharge entirely the supervisory/managerial
duties as a Sales Manager he will not come within the
2858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2014/CHAITRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
purview or definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
13. Clause (iv) or Sub-section 2(s) of the said Act
also disentitles him to claim to be a workman coming under
Section 2(s) of the said Act. His gross annual pay is fixed
to be ` 2,28,000 as per Clause 2 or Ext.W- l. Ext.W-11 pay
slip for the month of March, 2010 will go to show that he
was getting ` 19,378 as monthly salary. Ext.W-12 income
tax projection details for the year 2009-10 shows that he
was gelling a tutal sum of ` 2, 5.818.94ps as his salary
income. From the evidence adduced in this case it cannot
in any way be held that he was not drawing wages less
than ` 1.600 per rnensem at the time of his termination on
08.07.2010. As he was discharging duties entirely
supervisory/managerial in nature and was drawing a
monthly salary or more than ` 1600 he is again excluded
from the definition of workman as per Clause (iv) of Section
2(s) of the said Act. Hence based on the evidence adduced
by the workman it can very well be held that he is not a
workman coming within the definition of Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act to claim the benefits under the
provisions of that Act.
14. Point No. 2 : As it has already been found that he
is not a workman coming within the purview of the
definition under Section 2(s) of the said Act, it cannot be
said that the termination without recourse to the procedure
provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act is illegal. The legality of the termination otherwise
cannot be considered in this reference.
15. Point No. 3 : Since it has already been found that
he is not a workman as per the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, he is not entitled to any relief.
16. In the result an award is passed holding that the
workman is not one coming within the definition of
Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act and hence the legality and justifiability of the
termination of his service cannot be considered in this
reference.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st day of
December, 2013.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witnesses for the workman :
WW1
25.09.2013
Shri Libinson PP
WW2
25.09.2013
Shri Sajan S T
WW3
25.09.2013
Shri Padmakumar P
Witness for the managements
-NIL-
Exhibits for the workman
W-1
Copy of the Letter of appointment dated
02.05.2009 issued to the workman by the
management
W-2
Show-Cause Notice dated 03.06.20 I 0 issued by
the management to the workman
W-3
Copy of the reply dated 09.06.2010 to the Show
Cause Notice
W-4
Copy of letter dated 21.06.20]0 addressed to the
workman by the management
W-5
Letter dated 10.07.2010 addressed to the
management by Shri Sajan S T
W-6
Letter dated 10.07.2010 from Shri Padmakumar P
to the manager
W-7
Termination letter dated 08.07.2010 issued to the
workman by the management
W-8
Copy of letter dated 17.07.2010 of the workman
to the Labour Officer, Cochin-Kerala
W-9
Conciliation letter dated 25.08.2010 from the
management to the Assistant Labour
Commissiener, Cochin
W-10
Copy of the letter dated NIL by the workman to
the management
W-11
Pay Slip of the workman for the month of 03/2010
W-12
Income Tax Projection details for the year
2009-10 of the workman
W-13
Copy of statement of Cheque issued policies &
Cash payments
W-14
Certificate of Excellence for the month of August,
2009
W-15
Certificate of Excellence in "SM Champion
Trophy Contest'
W-16
Certificate of Excellence in 'Navarathna Contest’
W-17
Certificate of Excellence in ‘9-11 Contest'
W-18
Certificate of appreciation on achieving ARF
Target
W-19
Letter No.7/22/2010-DI dated 01.02.2011 issued
by the ALC(C), Ernakulam to the workman
Exhibits for the Managements
-NIL-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 29] 2014@pS=k 8] 1936
2859
ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1104-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k] dskydkrk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&17011@6@2009&vkbZ vkj (,e)]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th March , 2014
S.O. 1104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/ 2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kolkata and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 10-3-2014.
[No. L-17011/6/2009-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 29 of 2010
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
L.I.C. of India
and
Their workmen
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Das, Asstt.
Managment
Secretary (P&IR) Eastern Zonal
Office, Kolkata
On behalf of the : Mr. Sanjay Chakraborty, Geneal
Workmen
Secretary of the union
State: West Bengal
Industry : Insurance
Dated 3rd February, 2014
AWARD
By Order No. L-17011/6/2009-IR(M) dated 04-10-2010
the Government of India Ministry of Labour in exercise of
its powers under Section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
“ Whether the action of the management of Life
Insurance Corporation of Indid, Zonal Office, Kolkata
in depriving the fringe benefits like HRA, CCA, Leave
facilities etc. and payment of monthly salary through
cheque to 43 casual workmen at per with other groups
of casual workmen those who are enjoying this
benefit is justified ? What relief the concerned
workmen are entitled to ?”
2. In course of hearing, one petition has been filed
today by Mr. Sanjay Chakraborty, General Secretary of the
union intimating that the dispute between the parties has
been settled amicable and the demands of the workmen
have already been fulfilled by the managemet. In such
circumstaces, the union does not want to proceed with the
case further.
3. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that the workmen have no grievance against the
management and as such the workmen union does not
want to proceed with the case further. So, it is evident that
there is no industrial dispute between the parties.
4. In view of the above, the reference is disposed of
by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Kolkata
Dated : The 3rd February, 2014.
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, 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.