dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1422-—dsaæh; ljdkj] ,rn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr èkkjk 5 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vle jkT; ljdkj] jktuhfrd (lrdZrk

d{k) foHkkx fnliqj dh lgefr ls fnukad 6 ebZ] 2013 dh vf/

lwpuk la- ih,y,(oh) 151@2012@186 }kjk ;wuhis2;w ds fo:¼

iqfyl LVs'ku lhvkbZMh (vle) esa Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjkvksa 120ch] 406 rFkk 420

ds varxZr ntZ ekeyk la- 14@2011 vkSj cfly bUVjus'kuy fy- ds

fo:¼ iqfyl LVs'ku chvkbZbZvks (vle) esa izkbZt fpV ,oa euh

ldqZys'ku Ldhe (cS¯ux) vf/fu;e] 1978 (1978 dk vf/fu;e

la- 43) dh /kjkvksa 4] 5] ,oa 6 ds lkFk ifBr Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk

1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e 45) dh /kjkvksa 120ch] 406 rFkk

420 ds v/hu ntZ ekeyk la- 32@2011 ls lacaf/r vijk/ksa ds

1865 GI/2014

(3771)

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- 20]

ubZ fnYyh, ebZ 11—ebZ 17] 2014] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 21—oS'kk[k 27] 1936

No. 20]

NEW DELHI, MAY 11—MAY 17, 2014, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 21—VAISAKHA 27, 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)

iz;kl] nqLizsj.k ,oa "kM~;a=kksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kf/dkj dk foLrkj laiw.kZ

vle jkT; ij djrh gS A

¹la- 228@36@2013&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2014

S.O. 1422.—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Assam, Political (Vigilance Cell) Department,

Dispur vide Notification No. PLA(V)151/2012/186 dated

6th May, 2013, hereby extends powers and Jurisdiction of

the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whale State of Assam for investigation of Case No. 14/

2011 under sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal

3772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station

CID (Assam) against Unipay2u and Case No. 32/2011 under

sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(Act No. 45 of 1860) read with sections 4,5 and 6 of the

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act,

1978 (Act No. 43 of 1978) registered at Police Station BIEO

(Assam) against Basil International Limited and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above

mentioned offences.

[No. 228/36/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1423-—dsaæ ljdkj] ,rn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr èkkjk 5 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g (,e) foHkkx] fr#ouariqje

dh lgefr ls fnukad 22 iQjojh] 2012 dh vf/lwpuk th vks

(,e ,l) la- 66@2012@x`g (,l-vkj-vks la- 119@2012) }kjk

Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk

468 rFkk 469 ds varxZr lh vkbZ Mh vijk/ 'kk[kk (dsjy) esa

Jh Vh-th uank dqekj ds fo#¼ vijk/ la- 437@lh-vkj@vks-lh-

MCY;w&II@bZds,e@2010 ds rgr mDr vijk/ksa ds iz;kl] nqLizsj.k]

"kM~;a=kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds

lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kf/dkj dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy jkT;

ij djrh gS A

¹la- 228@13@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1423.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,

Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O.(Ms.) No.66/

2012/Home (S.R.O. No. 119/2012) dated 22nd February, 2012,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members

of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State

of Kerala for investigation of Crime No.437/CR/OCW-II/

EKM/2010 under sections 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at CID Crime

Branch (Kerala) against Shri T.G. Nanda Kumar and

attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to the

above mentioned offences.

[ No. 228/13/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1424-—cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa

varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970 dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (2d) ds }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad ds ijke'kZ ls mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr lsaVªy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k dh izkf/Ñr iwath dks rhu gtkj djksM+ #i;s ls

c<+kdj ik¡p gtkj djksM+ #i;s djrh gS A

¹la- 11@4@2009&chvks,º

,e- ,e- nkSyk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2014

S.O. 1424.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2A) of section 3 of the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the

Government of India, in consultation with the Reserve Bank

of India, hereby increases the authorized capital of Central

Bank of India under the Act from Three thousand crores of

rupees to Five thousand crores of rupees.

[No.11/4/2009-BOA]

M. M. DAWLA, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lhihoh izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1425-—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfiQlj ('kiFk

vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa dsaæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jherh vpZuk etqenkj] lgk;d

dks 9 ebZ] 2014 Hkkjr ds dkalqykokl fc²e?ke esa lgk;d dkalqyj

vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@1@2014º

vkj- ds- isfjufM;k] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi , the 9th May, 2014

S.O. 1425.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorize Smt. Archana Majumdar, Assistant, in

Consulate General of India, Birmingham to perform the

duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 9th

May, 2014.

[No. T. 4330/01/2014]

R. K. PERINDIA, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3773

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1426-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa A

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) tks fd

jn~n gksus dh

la-

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

jn~n gksus gSa] vxj gS]

frfFk

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 4803% 1985%

31 ekpZ]

105&bZ03 % 2010_ oL=kkfn

d~yksjhuhÑr ty ds

2014

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

izfr oL=kkfn lkexzh ds

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 03

jax ds iDdsiu dks

d~yksjhuhÑr ty ds izfr

Kkr djus dh fof/

jax dk iDdkiu

(rj.krky&ty)

(rj.k rky&ty)

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

2-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

105&bZ05 % 2010_ ol~=kkfn

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 05 /Ccs ds

izfr jax dk iDdkiu%

vewy

3-

vkbZ ,l 2239 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2239% 1971%

31 ekpZ]

i'kq/u vkgkj ?kVd ds

i'kq/u vkgkj ?kVd ds

2014

:i esa xsgW¡w pksdj fof'k"V

:i esa xsgW¡w pksdj fof'k"V

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

4-

vkbZ ,l 3406(Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3406(Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ]

2014 dkmaVj¯ld ,oa

1986 dkmaVj¯ld ,oa

2014

dkmaVjcksj ds vk;ke

dkmaVjcksj ds vk;ke

Hkkx 2 dkmaVjcksj

Hkkx 2 dkmaVjcksj

(rhljk iqujh{k.k)

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

5-

vkbZ ,l 4081 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 4081 % 1986

31 ekpZ]

Cyk¯LVx vkSj lacaf/r

Cyk¯LVx vkSj lacaf/r

2014

fMª¯yx dk;Z & lqj{kk

fMª¯yx dk;Z & lqj{kk

lafgrk

lafgrk

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

6-

vkbZ ,l 4811 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 4811 % 1992

31 ekpZ]

nky phuh lkcqr &

nky phuh lkcqr &

2014

fof'kf"V

fof'kf"V iqujh{k.k

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

7-

vkbZ ,l 5916 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 5916 % 1970

31 ekpZ]

xeZ fcVqfeul lkexzh dks

xeZ fcVqfeul lkexzh dks

2014

iz;qDr dj fuekZ.k &

iz;qDr dj fuekZ.k dh

lqj{kk lafgrk

lqj{kk lafgrk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

3774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8-

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 12)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 12)%

31 ekpZ]

2013 yqxnh ds fy,

1975 yqxnh ds fy,

2014

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 12

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 12

dSfY'k;e lkexzh Kkr djuk

dSfY'k;e lkexzh Kkr

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

djuk

9-

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 13)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 13)%

31 ekpZ]

2013 yqxnh ds fy,

1975 yqxnh ds fy,

2014

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 13

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 13

rkack lkexzh Kkr djuk

rkack lkexzh Kkr djuk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

10-

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 14)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 14)%

31 ekpZ]

2013 yqxnh ds fy,

1975 yqxnh ds fy,

2014

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 14

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 14

yksgk lkexzh Kkr djuk

yksgk lkexzh Kkr djuk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

11-

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 15)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 (Hkkx 15)%

31 ekpZ]

2013 yqxnh ds fy,

1975 yqxnh ds fy,

2014

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 15

ijh{k.k i¼fr Hkkx 15

eSaxuht lkexzh Kkr djuk

eSaxuht lkexzh Kkr djuk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

12-

vkbZ ,l 13145 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13145 % 1993

31 ekpZ]

fepZ ,oa elkys & uewus

fepZ ,oa elkys & uewus

2014

ysus dh i¼fr;ka

ysus dh i¼fr;ka

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

13-

vkbZ ,l 13252 (Hkkx 21) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

&ugha&

-NA-

2013 vkbZ bZ lh 60950&

21% 2002 lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh

miLdj & lqj{kk Hkkx

21 nwjLFk ikoj izHkj.k

14-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

&ugha&

-NA-

13936&1 % 2004 oL=kkfn &

cqus gq, diM+ksa ds lhou

esa yxs /kxs dh fLyiist

izfrjksf/rk Kkr djuk

Hkkx 1 LFkkbZ lhou

vksi¯ux fof/

15-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

&ugha&

-NA-

13936&2 % 2004 oL=kkfn &

cqus gq, diM+ksa ds lhou

esa yxs /kxs dh fLyiist

izfrjksf/rk Kkr djuk

Hkkx 3 LFkkbZ Hkkj

fof/

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3775

16-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

&ugha&

-NA-

13936&3 % 2005 oL=kkfn &

cqus gq, diMksa ds lhou

esa yxs /kxs dh fLyiist

izfrjksf/rk Kkr djuk

Hkkx 3 lqbZ d~ySe~i

fof/

17-

vkbZ ,l 14147 (Hkkx 7) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

2013 ,l vks@vkbZ bZ lh

7811&7 % 2004 igpku

dkM~Zl & fof'kf"V fjdkW²Mx

rduhd Hkkx 7 pqacdh;

iV~Vh & fof'kf"V mPp

pØh;] mPp ?kur~vkbZ

18-

vkbZ ,l 15981 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

,lhVehizkbZM] rduhdh &

fof'kf"V

19-

vkbZ ,l 15985 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

VªkbZlkbZd~yktksy vkædj.kh;

ikmMj (MCY;w ih) &

fof'kf"V

20-

vkbZ ,l 16095 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

gStesV okgu & fof'kf"V

21-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 1) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

vkbZ ,l vks 13909&1 %

436 (Hkkx 2) %

2001 Hkkx 1 lkekU;

1965

ifjp;

22-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 13909&

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

2 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

436 (Hkkx 2) %

Hkkx 2 dks;yk & py

1965

/kjkvksa ls uewus ysuk

23-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 3) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 13909&

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

3 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

436 (Hkkx 2) %

Hkkx 3 dks;yk & LVs'kujh

1965

ykWV ls uewus ysuk

24-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 4) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 13909&

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

4 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

436 (Hkkx 2) %

Hkkx 4 dks;yk & ijh{k.k

1965

uewuksa dh rS;kjh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 5) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 13909&

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

5 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

436 (Hkkx 2) %

Hkkx 5 dksd & py /kjkvksa

1965

ls uewus ysuk

26-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 7) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 13909&

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

7 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

436 (Hkkx 2) %

Hkkx 7 dksd & uewus ysus]

1965

uewuksa dh rS;kjh rFkk

ijh{k.k dh ifj'kq¼rk Kkr

djus dh i¼fr;ka

27-

vkbZ ,l 16143 (Hkkx 8) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 13909&

(Hkkx 1@[kaM 2) %

2014

8 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa

1976 ,oa vkbZ ,l

dksd & ;kaf=kd uewus ysuk

436 (Hkkx 2) %

Hkkx 8 vfHkufr ijh{k.k

1965

dh i¼fr;ka

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa%

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

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in

}kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ % ih;wch@th,u-1º

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd (fons'kh Hkk"kk vkSj izdk'ku)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O.

1426.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of

the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on

the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of

Indian Standards

Establishment

Indian Standards

cancellation

Established

to be cancelled, if

any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.

IS/ISO 105-E03 : 2010

31 March, 2014

IS 4803 : 1985 Method

31 March, 2014

- Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness -Part

colour fastness of

E03 : Colour Fastness

textile materials to

to Chlorinated water

chlorinated water

(Swimming-pool water)

(swimming bath water

(First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3777

2.

IS/ISO 105-E05 : 2010

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

- Textiles -Tests for

colour fastness -Part

E05 : Colour Fastness

to spotting : acid

3.

IS 2239 : 2013 Wheat

31 March, 2014

IS 2239 : 1971 Wheat

31 March, 2014

Bran As Livestock

Bran As Livestock

Feed - Specification

Feed - Specification

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

4.

IS 3406 (Part 2) : 2014

31 March, 2014

IS 3406 (Part 2) : 1986

31 March, 2014

Dimensions for

Dimensions for

countersinks and

countersinks and

counterbores Part 2

counterbores Part 2

Counterbores

Counterbores

(Third Revision)

(Second Revision)

5.

IS 4081 : 2013 Blasting

31 March, 2014

IS 4081 : 1986 Safety

31 March, 2014

and Related Drilling

code for blasting

Operations - Code

and related drilling

of Safety

operations

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

6.

IS 4811 : 2014

31 March, 2014

IS 4811 : 1992

31 March, 2014

Cinnamon, Whole-

Cinnamon, Whole-

Specification

Specification

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

7.

IS 5916 : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 5916 : 1970

31 March, 2014

Constructions

Safety code for

involving use of

construction

Hot Bituminous

involving use

Materials- Code

of hot bituminous

of Safety

materials

(First Revision)

8.

IS 6213 (Part 12) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 12) :

31 March, 2014

Methods of test

1975 Methods of

for pulp Part 12

test for pulp Part

Determination of

12 Determination

calcium content

of calcium content

(First Revision)

9.

IS 6213 (Part 13) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 13) :

31 March, 2014

Methods of test

1975 Methods of

for pulp Part 13

test for pulp Part

Determination of

13 Determination

copper content

of copper content

(First Revision)

10.

IS 6213 (Part 14) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 14) :

31 March, 2014

Methods of test

1975 Methods of

for pulp Part 14

test for pulp Part

Determination of

14 Determination

Iron content

of Iron content

(First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

IS 6213 (Part 15) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 15) :

31 March, 2014

Methods of test

1975 Methods of

for pulp Part 15

test for pulp Part

Determination of

15 Determination

Manganese content

of Manganese

(First Revision)

content

12.

IS 13145 : 2014 Spices

31 March, 2014

IS 13145 : 1993

31 March, 2014

and Condiments -

Spices and

Methods of

Condiments -

Sampling

Methods of

(Second Revision)

Sampling

(First Revision)

13.

IS 13252 (Part 21) :

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

2013 Information

Technology Equipment

- Safety Part 21 Remote

Power Feeding

14.

IS/ISO 13936 (Part 1) :

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

2004 Textiles -

Determination of the

slippage resistance

of yarns at a seam

in woven fabrics

Part 1 Fixed seam

openind method

15.

IS/ISO 13936 (Part 2) :

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

2004 Textiles -

Determination of the

slippage resistance

of yarns at a seam

in woven fabrics

Part 2 Fixed load

method

16.

IS/ISO 13936 (Part 3) :

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

2004 Textiles -

Determination of the

slippage resistance

of yarns at a seam

in woven fabrics

Part 3 Needle

Clamp method

17.

IS 14147 (Part 7) :

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

2013 Identification

Cards - Recording

Technique Part 7

Magenetic Stripe-

High Coercivity,

High Density

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3779

18.

IS 15981 : 2013

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Acetamiprid

Technical

- Specification

19.

IS 15985 : 2013

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Tricyclazole,

Wettable Provides

- Specification

20.

IS 16095 : 2013

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Hazmat Vehicle

- Specification

21.

IS 16143 (Part 1) : 2014

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard coal and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 1 General

introduction’

22.

IS 16143 (Part 2) : 2014

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard coal and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 2 Coal - sampling

from moving

streams’

23.

IS 16143 (Part 3) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard coal and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 3 Coal - sampling

from stationary lots’

24.

IS 16143 (Part 4) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard Coal and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 4 Coal - Preparation

of test samples

25.

IS 16143 (Part 5) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard Coke and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 5 Coke - Sampling

from moving stream’

26.

IS 16143 (Part 7) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard coal and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 7 Methods for

determining the

precision of

sampling, sample

preparation and

testing’

27.

IS 16143 (Part 8) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) :

31 March, 2014

‘Hard coal and coke-

1976 and IS 436

Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

Part 8 Methods of

testing for bias’

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bahvan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

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

Pune, Kochi.

[Ref. PUB/GN-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1427-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa A

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) tks fd

jí gksus dh

la-

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

jí gksus gS] vxj gS]

frfFk

dh la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 971% 1983%

31 ekpZ]

105&bZ04 % 2008_ oL=kkfn

ilhu ds izfr oL=kkfn

2014

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

lkexzh ds jax ds

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 04

iDdsiu dks Kkr

ilhus ds izfr jax

djus dh fof/

dk iDdkiu

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

2-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 4389% 1987%

31 ekpZ]

105&bZ08 % 1994_ oL=kkfn

xeZ ty ds izfr

2014

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

oL=kkfn lkexzh ds jax

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 08 xeZ

ds iDdsiu dks Kkr

ty ds izfr jax dk

djus dh fof/

iDdkiu

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

3-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 972% 1988%

31 ekpZ]

105&bZ09 % 2010_ oL=kkfn

iksa¯Vx ds izfr

2014

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

oL=kkfn lkexzh ds jax

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 09

ds iDdsiu dks Kkr

iksa¯Vx ds izfr jax

djus dh fof/

dk iDdkiu

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

4-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 865% 1958%

31 ekpZ]

105&bZ10 % 1994_ oL=kkfn

fMdSVkb¯tx ds izfr

2014

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

oL=kkfn lkexzh ds jax

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 10

ds iDdsiu dks Kkr

fMdSVkb¯tx ds izfr

djus dh fof/

jax dk iDdkiu

5-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 983% 1983%

31 ekpZ]

105&bZ12 % 2010_ oL=kkfn

{kkjh; fe¯yx ds izfr

2014

µ jax ds iDdsiu dk

oL=kkfn lkexzh ds jax

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 12

ds iDdsiu dks Kkr

fe¯yx ds izfr jax

djus dh fof/

dk iDdkiu % {kkjh;

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

fe¯yx

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3781

6-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3425% 1986%

31 ekpZ]

105&E13 % 1994_ ol~=kkfnµ

ve~yh; iQs¯YVx ds izfr

2014

jax ds id~dsiu dk

ol~=kkfn lkexzh ds jax

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 13

ds id~dsiu dks Kkr

ve~yh; iQs¯YVx ds izfr

djus dh fof/

jax dk id~dkiu %

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

izp.k~M

7-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 iQjojh] 2014

&ugha&

-NA-

105&E16 % 2006_ ol~=kkfnµ

jax ds id~dsiu dk

ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 16

lksiQlk”kh ds diM+ksa ij

ikuh ds /c~cksa ds izfr jax

dk id~dkiu

8-

vkbZ ,l 1651 % 2013

iQjojh] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1651 % 1991

-NA-

lhlk ve~y izdkj ds fLFkj

lhlk ve~y izdkj ds

lSy vkSj cSVfj;ka] (/ukr~ed

fLFkj lSy vkSj cSVfj;ka]

ufydkdkj i~ysV lfgr) &

(/ukr~ed ufydkdkj

fof'kf"V (pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

i~ysV lfgr) & fof'k"V

rhljk iqujh{k.k)

9-

vkbZ ,l 2669 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2669 % 1971

31 ekpZ]

vkbZ ,l vks 12197 % 1996

oqMjiQ dh LykV fe¯yx

2014

oqMjiQ dh lhV dVj&

dVj lekukarj 'kSad ds

vk;ke (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

lkFk fof'kf"V (igyk

iqujh{k.k)

10-

vkbZ ,l 2911 (Hkkx 4) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2911 (Hkkx 4) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 ikby uhao dh fM”kkbu

1985 ikby uhao dh fMtkbu

2014

vkSj fuekZ.k jhfr lafgrk Hkkx 4

vkSj fuekZ.k dh jhfr lafgrk

ikbyksa dk Hkkj ijh{k.k (nwljk

Hkkx 4 ikbyksa dk Hkkj ijh{k.k

iqujh{k.k)

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

11-

vkbZ ,l 3952 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3952 % 19888

31 ekpZ]

nhokjksa vkSj foHkktuksa ds fy,

nhokjksa vkSj foHkktuksa ds fy,

2014

idh feV~Vh dh [kks[kyh b±V

idh feV~Vh dh [kks[kyh b±V

vkSj c~ykWd&fof'kf"V

dh fof'kf"V

(rhljk iqujh{k.k)

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

12-

vkbZ ,l 4014 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 4014 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 l~Vhy dh uyhnkj

1967 LVhy dh uyhnkj

2014

l~dsiQks¯YMx & jhfr lafgrk

LdSiQks¯YMx dh jhfr lafgrk %

Hkkx 2 l~dSiQks¯YMx ds lqj{kk

Hkkx 2 LdSiQks¯YMx ds lqj{kk

ds izko/ku (igyk iqujh{k.k)

fu;eu

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

13-

vkbZ ,l 5245 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 5245 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 rkj jl~lh l~i~ykb¯lx

1971 rkj jl~lh l~i~ykb¯lx

2014

dh i¼fr;ka Hkkx 2 iQs:y

dh i¼fr;ka Hkkx 2 iQs:y

lfgr ¯yx ysx&lqjf{kr

lfgr ¯yx ysx & lqjf{kr

vkbZ V£euy (igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ V£euy

14-

vkbZ ,l 6753 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6753 % 1972

31 ekpZ]

vkbZ ,l vks 12 % 1987

ok;q;ku & ikbiykbu &

2014

ok;q;ku & ikbiykbu &

vfHkfu/kZj.k

vfHkfu/kZj.k (igyk iqujh{k.k)

15-

vkbZ ,l 7264 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 7264 % 1974

-NA-

vkbZ ,l vks 45 % 1990

ok;q;ku & izS'kj

ok;q;ku & izS'kj fjiQ;w¯yx

fjiQ;q¯yx dusD'ku

dusD'ku (igyk iqujh{k.k)

16-

vkbZ ,l 7719 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

&ugha&

-NA-

/kfRod l£iy daqMfyr

xzkLdsV&fof'k"V (igyk

iqujh{k.k)

17-

vkbZ ,l 9127 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 9127 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 vkbZ ,l vks 7404&2 %

2002 dks;ys ds isVªksxzkfiQd

2014

2009 dks;ys ds isVªksxkzfiQd

fo'ys"k.k dh i¼fr;ka

fo'ys"k.k dh i¼fr;kW

vkbZ ,l vks 7404&2 % 2009

Hkkx 2 dks;ys ds uewus

Hkkx 2 dks;ys ds uewus rS;kj

rS;kj djus dh i¼fr;kW

djus dh i¼fr;ka (igyk

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

iqujh{k.k)

18-

vkbZ ,l 9549 (Hkkx 1) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 9549 % 1980

31 ekpZ]

2014 vkbZ ,l vks 7378 %

fLIyV fiu gksy] ok;j

2014

1983 iQkLVuj ckSYV~ LØw ,oa

gksy ,oa cksYV ds fy,

lVWM Hkkx 1 fLIyV fiu gksy

gSM LykWV ds vk;ke

ok;j gksy (igyk iqujh{k.k)

19-

vkbZ ,l 10980 (Hkkx 3) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

10980 (Hkkx 1) %

-NA-

2014 vkbZ ,l vks 5855&3 %

1984 ok;q vUrfj{k gsrq

1999 ok;q;ku & ,e ts pwfM+;ka

dkcys vkSj f<+cjh ,e ts

Hkkx 3 ÝY;wM flLVeksa dh

pwM+h dh fof'kf"V csfld

fiQ¯Vxksa ds lhfer vk;ke

izksiQkby dkcys vkSj 2 Hkkx

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

f<+cjh ds vk;ke

20-

vkbZ ,l 11852 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

(IS 11852 : Pt 1- Pt 9)

-NA-

Lopy okgu czs¯dx laca/h

,e] ,u vkSj Vh Js.kh ds

(Pt 1) Lopy okgu&czsd

okguksa dh LohÑfr ls lac¼

vkSj czs¯dx ra=k Hkkx 1&

,d leku izko/ku (nwljk

'kCnkoyh (igyk iqujh{k.k)

iqujh{k.k)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3783

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(Pt 2) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx iz.kkyh Hkkx 2

lkekU; dk;Z vkSj fo'ks"krk,a

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 3) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx iz.kkyh Hkkx 3&

dk;Zdkfjrk vis{kk,a vkSj

ewY;kadu (igyk iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 4) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx iz.kkyh Hkkx 4

laih¯Mr gok vkSj gok lgk;h

czsd&fo'ks"k vis{kk,a

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 5) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx ra=k Hkkx 5&

laih¯Mr ok;q vkSj ok;q

lgk;rk czsd&nkc ijh{k.k

la;kstu (igyk iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 6) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx iz.kkyh Hkkx 6&

fuokZr czs¯dx ra=k&fo'ks"k

vis{kk,a (igyk iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 7) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx iz.kkyh Hkkx 7&

czsd Mk;ukehVj ij vLrj

dh ijh{k.k in~ofr (igyk

iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 8) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx iz.kkyh Hkkx 8&

ijh{k.k dk;Zfof/

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

(Pt 9) Lopy okgu&czsd

vkSj czs¯dx ra=k Hkkx 9&

jks/h&ykWd ;qfDr;ksa okys

okguksa ds fy, vis{kk,a

21-

vkbZ ,l 12508 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12508 %

31 ekpZ]

Lopkfyr okguksa ds fy,

2005 Lopkfyr okguksa

2014

bySfDVªd VsdksehVj &

ds fy, bySfDVªd

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

VsdksehVj

3784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

22-

vkbZ ,l 12673 (Hkkx 1) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12673 %

31 ekpZ]

2013 oL=kfn ekjfVuMsy

1989 VsDlVkby diM+s&

2014

fof/ }kjk diM+s dk

vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/&Kkr

vkbZ ,l vks 12947&1 %

djus dh i¼fr

1998 vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/

Kkr djuk Hkkx 1

ekfjVuMsy vi?kZ"k.k

ijh{k.k midj.k

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

23-

vkbZ ,l 12673 (Hkkx 1) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12673 %

31 ekpZ]

2013 oL=kfn ekjfVuMsy

1989 VsDlVkby diM+s&

2014

fof/ }kjk diM+s dk

vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/&Kkr

vkbZ ,l vks 12947&2 %

djus dh i¼fr

1998 vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/

Kkr djuk Hkkx 2

uewus dk VwVuk Kkr djuk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

24-

vkbZ ,l 12673 (Hkkx 3) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12673 %

31 ekpZ]

2013 oL=kfn ekjfVuMsy

1989 VsDlVkby diM+s&

2014

fof/ }kjk diM+s dk

vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/&Kkr

vkbZ ,l vks 12947&3 %

djus dh i¼fr

1998 vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/

Kkr djuk Hkkx 3

otu gkfu Kkr djuk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

25-

vkbZ ,l 12673 (Hkkx 4) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12673 %

31 ekpZ]

2013 oL=kfn ekjfVuMsy

1989 VsDlVkby diM+s&

2014

fof/ }kjk diM+s dk

vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/&Kkr

vkbZ ,l vks 12947&4 %

djus dh i¼fr

1998 vi?k"kZ.k izfrjks/

Kkr djuk Hkkx 3

otu gkfu Kkkr djuk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

26-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

13402 % 1995 'kY; ,oa

nar laca/h nLrh midj.k &

vkVksd~ys¯ox] la{kkj.k ,oa

rkih; vukoj.k dh

izfrjksf/rk Kkr djuk

27-

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 4)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 4) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

1993 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

2014

dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V

dqaMy.k rkjkas dh fof'k"V

Hkkx 4 lksYMjscy iksyh;wjsFksu

Hkkx 4 lksYMjscy iksyh;wjsFksu

buSefyr xksykdkj rkack

buSefyr xksykdkj rkack rkjsa

rkjs] oxZ 130

oxZ 130

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3785

28-

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 43)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 43) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

2005 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

2014

dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V

dqaMy.k rkjkas dh fof'k"V

Hkkx 43 ,jksesfVd iksyh,ekbZM

Hkkx 43 ,jksesfVd

Vsi p<+h rkack rkjsa]

iksyh,ekbZM Vsi p<+h

oxZ 240

rkack rkjsa] oxZ 240

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

29-

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 44)%

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 44) %

31 ekpZ]

2013 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

2005 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

2014

dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V

dqaMy.k rkjkas dh fof'k"V

Hkkx 44 ,jksesfVd Vsi p<+h

Hkkx 44 ,jksesfVd

vk;rkdkj rkack rkjsa]

Vsi p<+h vk;rkdkj

oxZ 240

rkack rkjsa] oxZ 240

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

30-

vkbZ ,l 13771 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

vkbZ bZ 60895 % 2002

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu

ij dk;Z djuk & 800Kv

vkSj 600Kv fn"V /kjk

rd dh vfHkfgr oksy~Vst

ij iz;qDr gksus okyh

pkydh; Dyks¯Fkx

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

31-

vkbZ ,l 13774 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

vkbZ bZ lh 60903 % 2002

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu

ij dk;Z djuk &

fo|qrjks/h lkexzh ds

nLrkus

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

32-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

13935&1 % 1999

oL=kkfn & diMs+ vkSj

fu£er & oL=kksa ds

lhou ruu xq.k/eZ

Hkkx 1 iV~Vh fof/

}kjk lhou VwVus ds

fy;s vf/dre cy

Kkr djuk

33-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

13935&2 % 1999

oL=kkfn & diMs+ vkSj

fu£er & oL=kksa ds

lhou ruu xq.k/eZ

Hkkx 2 xzSc fof/

}kjk lhou VwVus ds

fy;s vf/dre cy

Kkr djuk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

34-

vkbZ ,l 14841 (Hkkx 4@

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 14841 (Hkkx 4@

31 ekpZ]

Sec 1) % 2013 dqaMyu

Sec 1) % 2000 dqaMyu

2014

rkjksa dh iSdstcanh

rkjksa dh iSdstcanh

Hkkx 1 ijh{k.k i¼fr;ka

Hkkx 4 ijh{k.k i¼fr;kW

vuqHkkx 1 FkeksZi~ykfLVd

vuqHkkx 1 FkeksZi~ykfLVd

lkexzh ls fu£er fMyhojh

lkexzh ls fu£er fMyhojh

l~iwy

l~iwy

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

35-

vkbZ ,l 14956 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

vkbZ bZ 61472 % 2004

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu

ij dk;Z djuk 72-5Kv ls

800Kv rd dh oksy~Vst

jsat esa fn"k~V /kjk iz.kkyh

gsrq U;wure mixeu

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

36-

vkbZ ,l 15974 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12449 (Hkkx 2) %

31 ekpZ]

ySEiksa ds lgk;d pkyu

1988 pkyu midj.k dh

2014

midj.k (x~yks LVkVZj

fof'kf"V;ka (x~yks LVkVZj

dks NksM+dj) & dk;Zdkfjrk

dks NksM+dj) & dk;Zdkfjrk

vis{kk,a

vis{kk,a

37-

vkbZ ,l 16093 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

xSl vk/kfjr baLVsUVsfu;e

okWVj ghVj ds laLFkkiu &

jhfr lafgrk

38-

vkbZ ,l 16111 % 2013

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

bykfLVd iV~Vh

39-

vkbZ ,l 16148 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

/krq ds gsykbM ySe~i &

dk;Zdkfjrk fof'k"V

40-

vkbZ ,l 16155 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

bZ lh 61318 % 2007

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu

ij dk;Z djuk vkStkjksa]

;qfDr;ksa vkSj miLdkjksa

ij vuqiz;ksT; vuqvkdyu

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

41-

vkbZ ,l 16166 % 2014

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

vkbZ bZ lh 62554 % 2011

iQyksjhlsaV ySe~iksa esa ejdjh

l~rj dks ekius ds fy,

uewus dh rS;kjh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3787

42-

vkbZ ,l 16166 (Hkkx 1) %

31 ekpZ] 2014

-NA-

-NA-

2014 vkbZ bZ lh 60855&1 %

2009 pkyw fctyh dh

ykbZu ij dk;Z djuk &

fo|qrjks/h iQkse & Hkfjr

ufy;ka ,oa NMsa

Hkkx 1 o`rkdkj vuqizl~Fk

dkV okyh ufy;ka ,oa

NMsa

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa%

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

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in

}kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ PUB/GN-1º

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd (fons'kh Hkk"kk vkSj izdk'ku)

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O.

1427.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of

the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on

the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULED

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of

Indian Standards

Establishment

Indian Standards

cancellation

Established

to be cancelled, if

any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.

IS/ISO 105-E04 : 2008

31 March, 2014

IS 971 : 1983 Methods

31 March, 2014

Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness -Part

colour fastness of

E04 : Colour fastness

textile materials to

to perspiration

perspiration

(First Revision)

2.

IS/ISO E08 : 1994

31 March, 2014

IS 4389 : 1987 Methods

31 March, 2014

Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness -Part

colour fastness of

E08 : Colour fastness

textile materials to

to hot water

hot water

(First Revision)

3.

IS/ISO 105-E09 : 2010

31 March, 2014

IS 972 : 1988 Method

31 March, 2014

Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness to

colour fastness of

potting

textile materials to

potting

(First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4.

IS/ISO 105-E 10 : 1994

31 March, 2014

IS 865 : 1958 Method

31 March, 2014

Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness -Part

colour fastness of

E10 : Colour fastness

textile materials to

to decatizing

decatizing

5.

IS/ISO 105-E 12 : 2010

31 March, 2014

IS 983 : 1983 Method

31 March, 2014

Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness -Part

colour fastness of

E12 : Colour fastness

textile materials to

to milling : Alkaline

Alkaline milling

milling

(First Revision)

6.

IS/ISO 105-E 13 : 1994

31 March, 2014

IS 3425 : 1986 Method

31 March, 2014

Textiles -Tests for

for determination of

colour fastness -Part

colour fastness of

E13 : Colour fastness

textile materials to

to acid felting :

acid felting : severe

Severe

(First Revision)

7.

IS/ISO 105-E 16 :2006

Feb, 2014

Nil

NA

Textiles -Tests for

colour fastness -Part

E 16 : Colour fastness

to water spotting on

upholstry fabrics

8.

IS 1651 : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 1651 : 1991

NA

Stationary cells and

Stationary cells and

batteries lead acid type

batteries lead acid type

(with tubular positive

(with tubular positive

plates) - Specification

plates)

(Fourth Revision)

(Third Revision)

9.

IS 2669 : 2013/ISO

31 March, 2014

IS 2669 : 1971

31 March, 2014

12197 : 1996 Woodreff

Specification Woodruff

Keyseat cutters -

keys slot milling cutters

Dimensions

with parallel shank

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

10.

IS 2911 (Part 4) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 2911 (Part 4) : 1985

31 March, 2014

Design and construction

Code of practice for

of pile foundations-

design and construction

code of practice : Part 4

of pile foundations :

load test on piles

Part 4 load test on piles

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

11.

IS 3952 : 2013 Burnt

31 March, 2014

IS 3952 : 1988

31 March, 2014

clay hollow bricks

Specification for

and blocks for walls

burnt clay hollow

and partitions -

blocks for walls

Specification

and partitions

(Third Revision)

(Second Revision)

12.

IS 4014 (Part 2) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 4014 (Part 2) : 1967

31 March, 2014

Steel Tubular

Code of Practice

Seaffolding - Code

for steel tubular

of Practice : Part 2

Seaffolding : Part 2

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3789

Safety provisions

Safety regulations

for Seaffolding

for Seaffolding

(First Revision)

13.

IS 5245 (Part 2) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 5245 (Part 2) : 1971

31 March, 2014

Methods for splicing

‘‘Methods for splicing

of wire ropes Part 2

of wire ropes Part 2

wire rope sling legs

wire rope sling legs

with ferrule - second

with ferrule - second

eye terminal

eye terminal

(First Revision)

14.

IS 6753 : 2013 Aircraft

31 March, 2014

IS 6753 : 1972 Code

31 March, 2014

- pipelines -

for identification

Identification

of Aircraft Pipelines

(First Revision)

15.

IS 7264 : 2013 Aircraft

31 March, 2014

IS 7264 : 1974

NA

pressure refueling

Dimensions for

connections

Aircraft pressure

(First Revision)

refueling connection

16.

IS 7719 : 2013 Metallic

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

Spiral Wound Gaskets-

Specification

(First Revision)

17.

IS 9127 (Part 2) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 9127 (Part 2) : 2002

31 March, 2014

Methods for

Method for the

petrographic analysis

petrographic analysis

of coals : Part 2

of Bituminous coal

Methods of preparing

and Anthracite

coal samples

Part 2 : Method

(Second Revision)

of preparing coal

samples

(First Revision)

18.

IS 9549 (Part 1) : 2014/

31 March, 2014

IS 9549 : 1980

31 March, 2014

ISO 7378 : 1983

Dimensions for

Fasteners - Bolt,

split pin holes,

Screws and Studs

wire holes and

Part 1 split pin

head slots for

holes and wire holes

bolts

(First Revision)

19.

IS 10980 (Part 3) : 2014

31 March, 2014

1. IS 10980 (Part 1) :

NA

Aerospace - MJ

1984 Specification

Threads Part 3 : Limit

for aerospace bolts

dimensions for

and nuts (MJ threads) :

fittings for fluid

Part 1 Basic profile

system

2. IS 10980 (Part 1)

(First Revision)

1984 Specification

for aerospace bolts

and nuts (MJ threads) :

Part 2 Dimensions

for bolts and nust

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

IS 11852 : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 11852 (Part 1 - Part 9) :

NA

[Amalgamating

2001 Automotive

IS 11852 (Part 1 to

vehicles -brakes and

9) : 2001] Automotive

braking systems :

vehicles - Uniform

1. Part 1 Terminology

provision concerning

(First Revision)

the approval of vehicles

2. Part 2 General

of categories M. N.

functions and

and T with regard to

featrues

braking

(First Revision)

(Second Revision)

3. Part 3 Performance

requirements and

evaluation

(First Revision)

4. Part 4 Compressed

airand air assisted

brakes-special

requirements

(First Revision)

5. Part 5 Compressed

air and air assisted

brakes-Pressure

test connections

(First Revision)

6. Part 6 Vaccum

braking systems-

Special requirements

(First Revision)

7. Part 7 Inertia

dynamometer

test method for

brake lining

(First Revision)

8. Part 8 Test

procedures

(First Revision)

9. IS 11852 (Part 9) :

2003 Requirements

for vehicles equipped

with anti-lock

braking system

21.

IS 12508 : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 12508 : 2005

31 March, 2014

Electric Tachometer

Electric tachometer

for automotive

system for

vehicles -

automotive vehicles

Specification

(First Revision)

22.

IS 12673 (Part 1) :

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textiles

31 March, 2014

2013/ISO 12947

fabrics - Abrasion

(Part 1) : 1998

resistance - Methods

Textiles -

for determination

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3791

Determination

of the abrasion

resistance of

fabrics by the

martindale method-

Part 1 : Martindale

abrasion testing

apparatus

(First Revision)

23.

IS 12673 (Part 2) :

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile

31 March, 2014

2013/ISO 12947

fabrics - Abrasion

(Part 2) : 1998

resistance - Methods

Textiles -

for determination

Determination

of the abrasion

resistance of

fabrics by the

martindale method-

Part 2 : Determination

of specimen

breakdown

(First Revision)

24.

IS 12673 (Part 3) :

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile

31 March, 2014

2014/ISO 12947

fabrics - Abrasion

(Part 3) : 1998

resistance - Methods

Textiles -

for determination

Determination

of the abrasion

resistance of

fabrics by the

martindale method-

Part 3 : Determination

of mass loss

(First Revision)

25.

IS 12673 (Part 4) :

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile

31 March, 2014

2014/ISO 12947

fabrics - Abrasion

(Part 4) : 1998

resistance - Methods

Textiles -

for determination

Determination

of the abrasion

resistance of

fabrics by the

martindale method-

Part 4 : Assessment

of appearance

change

(First Revision)

26.

IS/ISO 13402 : 1995

31 March, 2014

—

—

Surgical and Dental

hand instruments -

determination of

resistance against

autoclaving corrosion

and thermal exposure

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27.

IS 13730 (Part 4) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 13730 (Part 4) :

31 March, 2014

Specification for

1993 particular types

particular types

of winding wires

of winding wires

Part 4 Solderable

Part 4 Solderable

polyurethane

polyure - thana

enamelld round

enamelled round

copper wire,

copper wire,

class 130

class 130

(First Revision)

28.

IS 13730 (Part 43) :

31 March, 2014

IS 13730 (Part 43) :

31 March, 2014

2013 Specification

2005 Specification

for particular types

for particular types

of winding wires

of winding wires

Part 43 aromatic

Part 43 aromatic

polyimide tape

polyimide tape

wrapped round

wrapped round

copper wire,

copper wire,

class 240

class 130

(First Revision)

29.

IS 13730 (Part 44) :

31 March, 2014

IS 13730 (Part 44) :

31 March, 2014

2013 Specification

2005 particular types

for particular types

of winding wires

of winding wires

Part 44 Aromatic

Part 44 Aromatic

polyimide tape

polyimide tape

wrapped

wrapped rectangular

rectangular

copper wire,

copper wire,

class 240

class 240

(First Revision)

30.

IS 13771 : 2013 Live

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

working- Conductive

clothing for use

at nominal voltage

upto 800 kv ac to

600 kv dc

(First Revision)

31.

IS 13774 : 2014 Live

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

working- gloves

of insulating

material

(First Revision)

32.

IS/ISO 13935 (Part 1) :

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

1999 Textiles Seam

tensile properties

of the fabrics and

made up textiles

articles - Part 1 :

Determination of

maximum force to

seam rupture

using the strip

method

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3793

33.

IS/ISO 13935 (Part 2) :

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

1999 Textiles Seam

tensile properties

of the fabrics and

made up textiles

articles - Part 2 :

Determination of

maximum force to

seam rupture

using the grap

method

34.

IS 14841 (Part 4/Sec 1) :

31 March, 2014

IS 14841 (Part 4/Sec 1) :

31 March, 2014

2013 packing of

2000 packing of

winding wires

winding wire

Part 4 Methods

Part 4 methods

of test, sec 1

of test, section 1

delivery spools

Delivery spools made

made from

from thermoplastic

thermoplastic

materials

materials

(First Revision)

35.

IS 14956 : 2014 Live

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

working - Minimum

approach distance

from A.C. systems

in the voltage

range 72.5 kv to

800 kv A method

of caluclation

(First Revision)

36.

IS 15974 : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 12449 (Part 2) :

31 March, 2014

Auxiliaries for

1988 Starting

lamps starting devices

devices (other

other than glow starters

than glow starters) :

performances

Part 2 Performance

requirements

requirements

37.

IS 16093 : 2013

31 March, 2014

Nil

NA

Installation of gas

based instantaneous

water heater -

code of practice

38.

IS 16111 : 2013

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Elastic Bandage

39.

IS 16148 : 2014

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Metal halide

lamps performance

Specification

40.

IS 16155 : 2014

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Live Working

Conformity

assessment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

applicable to

tools devices &

equipment

41.

IS 16166 : 2014

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Sample preparation

for measurement

of mercury level

in fluorescent

lamps

42.

IS 16167 (Part 1) : 2014

31 March, 2014

NA

NA

Live working -

Insulating foam -

filled tubes and

solid rods - Part 1

tubes & rods of

circular - cross-

section

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bahvan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

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

Pune, Kochi.

[Ref. PUB/GN-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages and Publication)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1428-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e (4) ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk ek

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke o irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&4824167

3&09&2013

eS- fnoku bathfu;¯jx]

iqu;ksZth iEi & LoPN

8472

&

&

1998

606@18] xyh ua- 5

B.Ms ty ds fy,

vk;kZ uxj]

ftyk jksgrd

(gfj;k.kk)

2-

,y&2624755

9&09&2013

eS- fgylu iqQVfo;j

futh lqj{kk miLdj

15298

03

&

2002

izk-fy-] 420&421]

Hkkx 3 lqj{kk iqQVfo;j

,e vkbZ bZ] Hkkx 1]

cgknqjx<+ &124507]

ftyk >Ttj

(gfj;k.kk)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3795

3-

,y&2619964

11&09&2013

eS- oh,poh cSojsftl izk-fy-]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

[kljk ua- 151@16@3]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

24@2] 25] xkWo jksgn

feujy ty ds

dk bu fjosU;w LVsV]

vykok)

b.MLVªh;y ,fj;k]

ftyk >Ttj

(gfj;k.kk)

4-

,y&2621648

12&09&2013

eS- lUuh b.MLVªhl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

[ksoV@[kljk ua- 116]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

eqLrfdy ua- 40@41

fefujy ty ds

xkWo cgyik] nenek jksM]

vykok)

rglhy lksguk]

ftyk xqMxkao

5-

,y&2627256

12&09&2013

eS- ikojt+ksu vkW;y

u;s fo|qr jks/u rsy

335

&

&

1993

fjiQkbujh izk-fy-]

36 ekbyLVksu] xqMxkao]

vyoj jksM] [kkrk ua- 51]

fdyk ua- 2] ghjekFkyk]

rglhy uwg¡] lksguk

ftyk esokr&122001

(gfj;k.kk)

6-

,y&4824874

13&09&2013

eS- jktdh bfjxs'ku]

¯lpkbZ midj.k &

14151

01

&

1999

xyh ua- 11] pEikiqjh]

fLizdyj ikbIl

jksgrd jksM]

pj[kh nknjh]

fHkokuh&127306

(gfj;k.kk)

7-

,y&2624452

17&09&2013

eS- gjoy ,Xok bf.M;k

¯lpkbZ midj.k NUuk

12785

&

&

1994

izk-fy-] 123 bZ]

izdkj ds fiQYVj

lSDVj & 6] fodkl

dsUæ] ckoy]

ftyk jsokM+h&123501

(gfj;k.kk)

8-

,y&4825472

18&09&2013

eS- jktdh bfjxs'ku]

¯lpkbZ miLdj &

14151

02

&

1999

xyh ua- 11] pEikiqjh]

fLizdyj ikbIl

jksgrd jksM]

Hkkx 2 % Dohd

pj[kh nknjh]

diYM iksyhbFkhyhu

fHkokuh&127306

ikbIl

(gfj;k.kk)

9-

,y&2631853

19&09&2013

eS- lksfu;j b.MLVªhl fy-]

ofu;MZ ltkoVh

1328

&

&

1996

28 ds,e jksgrd ekby

IykbZoqM

LVksu] xkao o Mkd?kj jksgn]

cgknqjx<+ & 124501]

ftyk >Ttj

(gfj;k.kk)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10-

,y&2639162

19&09&2013

eS- nÙk eSfMizksMDVl fy-]

Øsi cSUMst+

4605

&

&

1981

52&54 vkSj 63&64]

jkst+ dk eso] b.MLVªh;y

,fj;k] flVh lksguk]

ftyk xqMxkWo&122103

(gfj;k.kk)

11-

,y&2624553

20&09&2013

eS- psrU; bUVjizkbfll]

futh lqj{kk miLdj

4151

&

&

1993

IykWV ua- 39790]

Hkkx 2 lqj{kk iQqVfo;j

Jhjke okfVdk ds ihNs

nkSyrkckn b.MLVªh;y

,fj;k] nkSyrkckn]

ftyk xqMxkWo&122001

(gfj;k.kk)

12-

,y&2631348

24&09&2013

eS- oh,evkbZ IykfLVd

iksyhdkjcksusV 'khVsa

14443

&

&

1997

izk- fy-] [kljk ua- 91@

19] 20] 21] 22@1] 22@2]

xkWo Hkksjk dyka] fcuksyk]

ftyk xqMxkWo&122018

(gfj;k.kk)

13-

,y&2626759

27&09&2013

eS- oh- ds- iQScjhdsVlZ]

LVhy ds njoktksa

4351

&

&

2003

16@5] eFkqjk jksM]

ds izQse

xqfM;j Vk;j 'kks:e

ds ikl]

iQjhnkckn&121002]

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1428.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which

are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Operative

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Date

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-4824167

3-09-2013

M/s. Diwan Engineering

Pump - Regenerative 8472

- -

1998

606/18, Gali No. 5,

or Clear, Cold

Arya Nagar

Water

Distt. Rohtak

(Haryana)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3797

2.

L-2624755

9-09-2013

M/s. Hillson Footwear

Personal Protective

15298

03 - 2011

Pvt. Ltd., 420-421,

Equipments

ISO

-

- 2004

M.I.E., Part 1,

Part 3 Protective

20346

Bahadurgarh - 124507

Footwear

Distt. Jhajjar

(Haryana)

3.

L-2619964

11-09-2013

M/s. VHV Beverages

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Pvt. Ltd.,

Water (Other Than

Khasra No. 151/16/3,

Packaged Natural

24/2, 25, in Revenue

Mineral Water)

State of Vill. Rohad,

Industrial Area,

Distt. Jhajjar

(Haryana)

4.

L-2621648

12-09-2013

M/s. Sunny Industries.

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Khewat/Khasra No. 116,

Water (Other Than

Mustkil No. 40/41

Packaged Natural

Village Bahlpa,

Mineral Water)

Damdama Road,

Tehsil Sohna,

(Haryana)

5.

L-2627256

12-09-2013

M/s. Powerzone Oil

New Insulating 335

-

-

1993

Refinery (P) Ltd.

Oils

36th Milestone,

Gurgaon Alwar Road,

Khata No. 51, Kila No. 2,

Village Hirmathala,

Tehsil Nuh, Sohna,

Distt. Mewat

(Haryana)

6.

L-4824874

13-09-2013

M/s. Rajkee Irrigation,

Irrigation Equipment- 14151

01

-

1999

Street No. 11, Champapuri,

Sprinkler Pipes

Rohtak Road,

Charkhi Dadri,

Bhiwani - 127306

(Haryana)

7.

L-2624452

17-09-2013

M/s. Harval Agua India

Irrigation Equipment- 12785

- -

1994

Pvt. Ltd.,

Strainer type

123 E, Secto - 6,

Filters

Growth Center,

Bawal,

Distt. Rewari - 123501,

(Haryana)

8.

L-4825472

18-09-2013

M/s. Rajkee Irrigation,

Irrigation Equipment- 14151

01

-

1999

Street No. 11, Champapuri,

Sprinkler Pipes

Rohtak Road,

Charkhi Dadri,

Bhiwani - 127306

(Haryana)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.

L-2631853

19-09-2013

M/s. Sonear Industires

Veneered Decorative 1328

-

-

1996

Ltd., 28 KM,

Plywood

Rohtak Milestone,

V. P. O. Rohad,

Bahadurgarh - 124501,

Distt. Jhajjar

(Haryana)

10.

L-2639162

19-09-2013

M/s. Datt Mediproducts

Crepe Bandage 4605

-

-

1981

Ltd., 52-54 & 63-64,

Rox Ka Meo,

Industrial Area,

City Sohna,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122103

(Haryana)

11.

L-2624553

20-09-2013

M/s. Chetanya Enterprises

Protective Helmets 4151

-

-

1993

Plot No. 39790,

for Motorcycle

Behind Shree Ram

Riders

Vatika, Daultabad

Industrial Area,

Daultabad

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001

(Haryana)

12.

L-2631348

24-09-2013

M/s. VMI Plastic Pvt.

Polycarbonate 14443

-

-

1997

Ltd., Khasra No. 91/19,

Sheets

20, 21, 22/1, 22/2,

Village Bhora Kalan,

Binola,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122018

(Haryana)

13.

L-2626759

27-09-2013

M/s. V. K. Fabricators

Steel Door 4351

-

-

2003

16/5, Mathura Road,

Frames

Near Goodyear Tyre

Showroom,

Faridabad

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1429-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e (4) ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3799

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk ek

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke o irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&2633554

4&10&2013

eS- tsih,l jhbUiQksjlM

uyd ty O;oLFkk]

14402

&

&

1996

ikbi izk- fy-

vkS|ksfxd vif'k"V

10] xkWo dhM+koyh

o ty (is;ty ds

Mkdèkj cldksyk]

vykok) ds fy,

nnkfl;k jksM+]

dkap js'ks ds izcfyr

iQjhnkckn]

IykfLVd ikbZi]

(gfj;k.kk)

tksM+ vkSj fiQ¯Vx

2-

,y&2638059

7&10&2013

eS- eaxyk IykfLVd

futh lqj{kk miLdj

15298

03

&

2002

b.MLVªht]

Hkkx 3 laj{kh iqQVfo;j

1733] ,evkbZbZ]

Hkkx & ch]

cgknqjx<+ & 124507]

ftyk >Ttj]

(gfj;k.kk)

3-

,y&2646866

8&10&2013

eS- dEiSDV IykbZ

lkekU; mís'; ds

303

&

&

1989

cksMZl izk- fy-]

fy, IykbZoqM

43 ds,e LVksu]

fnYyh jksgrd jksM]

,u- ,p- 10]

xkWo o Mkd?kj jksgn]

rglhy cgknqjx<+ &

124507]

ftyk >Ttj]

(gfj;k.kk)

4-

,y&2646967

8&10&2013

eS- dEiSDV IykbZ

CykWd cksMZl

1659

&

&

2004

cksMZl izk- fy-]

43 ds,e LVksu]

fnYyh jksgrd jksM+]

,u- ,p- 10]

xkWo o Mkd?kj jksgn]

rglhy cgknqjx<+ &

124507]

ftyk >Ttj]

(gfj;k.kk)

5-

,y&2632855

14&10&2013

eS- [kheu b.MLVªhl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

gkml ua- 1] f'ko buDyso]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

blesyiqj jksM]

feujy ty ds

f'ko efUnj ds ikl]

vykok)

ftyk iQjhnkckn]

(gfj;k.kk)

3800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6-

,y&2634051

14&10&2013

eS- ch,u,u b.MLVªhl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

xkWo iQkt+hyiqj]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

vksesDl Iykt+k]

feujy ty ds

lksguk jksM]

vykok)

ftyk xqMxkWo]

(gfj;k.kk)

7-

,y&2632956

15&10&2013

eS- nso bUVjizkbfll]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

xyh ua- 1] ljLorh

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

dykSuh] lsgriqj]

feujy ty ds

'kgj iQjhnkckn]

vykok)

ftyk iQjhnkckn &

121005]

(gfj;k.kk)

8-

,y&2635356

15&10&2013

eS- eatqjkt csojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

izkz- fy-

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

fdyk ua- 13] 14@1]

feujy ty ds

[kljk ua- 74]

vykok)

xkWo /jpuk]

rglhy ckoy

ftyk jsokM+h & 123401]

(gfj;k.kk)

9-

,y&2636661

23&10&2013

eS- xqIrk ToSyjh gkml]

pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/krq,a 2112

&

&

2003

8@78,] vxzlsu ckt+kj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a &

(esu cktkj)]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

iqjkuk iQjhnkckn&

121002]

(gfj;k.kk)

10-

,y&2637663

23&10&2013

eS- ,e,u,l ,Dok

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

izk- fy-] eqLrfdy ua- 35]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

fdyk ua- 14(8&0)

feujy ty ds

17(8&0)]

vykok)

xkWo vxokuiqj]

ftyk iyoy & 121102]

(gfj;k.kk)

11-

,y&2641452

28&10&2013

eS- ,D'ku izksMDVl dEiuh]

lqf'y"V [kk| jax &

5346

&

&

1994

IykWV ua- 170] lSDVj & 4]

fufefÙk;kW vkSj

vkbZ,eVh] euslj]

feJ.k

ftyk xqMxkWo &122102]

(gfj;k.kk)

12-

,y&2639869

30&10&2013

eS- ekykckj xksYM izk- fy-]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq,a 1417

&

&

1999

th,iQ 10&11] xksYM lwd]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a &

,l- ,y- iQSl &1]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgkjkadu

xqMxkWo (bZ)]

ftyk xqMxkWo &122102]

(gfj;k.kk)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3801

13-

,y&2641250

30&10&2013

eS- Hkkjr ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq,a 1417

&

&

1999

7255] xqM+ cktkj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a &

ftyk jsokM+h&123401

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

(gfj;k.kk)

14-

,y&2641351

30&10&2013

eS- Hkkjr ToSylZ]

pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/krq,a 2112

&

&

2003

7255] xqM+ cktkj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a &

ftyk jsokM+h&123401

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

(gfj;k.kk)

15-

,y&2639970

31&10&2013

eS- oaf'kdk bySDVªkfuDl

VaxLVu rarq okys

814

&

&

2004

eSU;wiQSDp¯jx izk- fy-]

lkekU; lsok fctyh

IykWV ua- 15] lSDVj & 3]

ds cYc

xzksFk lSUVj

ckoy]

ftyk jsokM+h&123501

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1429.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of

which are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Date

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-2633554

4-10-2013

M/s JPS Reinforced

GRP Pipes, Joints

14402

- -

1996

Pipe (P) Ltd.,

and Fittings for

10, Village Kidawali,

Sewerage, Industrial

P. O. Baskola,

Waste and Water

Daddasiya Road,

(Other than

Faridabad

Potable)

(Haryana)

2.

L-2638059

7-10-2013

M/s Mangla Plastic

Safety, Protective

15298

03 -

2002

Industries,

and Occupational

1733, M.I.E., Part - B,

Footwear for

Bahadurgarh,

Professional Use

Distt. Jhajjar - 124507

Part 3 : Protective

(Haryana)

Footwear Except

for Special Application

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

L-2646866

8-10-2013

M/s Compact Ply Boards

Plywood for

303

- -

1989

(P) Ltd., 43 KM Stone

General Purposes

Delhi- Rohtak Road,

N.H. 10, V & P.O. Rohad,

Tehsil Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar - 124507

(Haryana)

4.

L-2646967

8-10-2013

M/s Compact Ply Boards

Block Boards

1659

- -

2004

(P) Ltd., 43 KM Stone

Delhi- Rohtak Road,

N.H. 10, V & P.O. Rohad,

Tehsil Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar - 124507

(Haryana)

5.

L-2632855

14-10-2013

M/s Khimman Industries,

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

H. No. 1, Shiv Enclave,

Water (Other Than

Ismailpur Road,

Packaged Natural

Near Shiv Mandir,

Mineral Water)

Faridabad

(Haryana)

6.

L-2634051

14-10-2013

M/s BNN Industries,

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Village Fazilpur,

Water (Other Than

Omaxe Plaza,

Packaged Natural

Sohna Road,

Mineral Water)

Distt. Gurgaon

(Haryana)

7.

L-2632956

15-10-2013

M/s Dev Enterprises,

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Gali No. 1, Saraswati

Water (Other Than

Colony, Sehatpur,

Packaged Natural

City Faridabad,

Mineral Water)

Distt. Faridabad-121005

(Haryana)

8.

L-2635356

15-10-2013

M/s Manjuraj Beverages

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Pvt. Ltd.,

Water (Other Than

Kila No. 13, 14/1,

Packaged Natural

Khasra No. 74,

Mineral Water)

Village Dharchana,

Tehsil Bawal,

Distt. Rewari - 123401

(Haryana)

9.

L-2636661

23.10.2013

M/s. Gupta Jewellery

Silver & Silver Alloys 2112

-

-

2003

House,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

8/78A, Aggarsain Bazar

Fineness and Marking

(Main Bazar)

Old Faridabad - 121002,

(Haryana)

10.

L-2637663

23-10-2013

M/s MNS Aqua Pvt. Ltd.,

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Mustkil No. 35,

Water (Other Than

Kila No. 14(8-0) 17(8-0)

Packaged Natural

Village Agwanpur,

Mineral Water)

Distt. Palwal - 121102,

(Haryana)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3803

11.

L-2641452

28-10-2013

M/s Action Products

Synthetic Food

5346

-

-

1994

Company,

Colour Preparations

Plot No. 170, Sector - 4,

and Mixtures

IMT, Manesar,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122102

(Haryana)

12.

L-2639869

30-10-2013

M/s. Malabar Gold

Gold & Gold Alloys

1417

-

-

1999

Pvt. Ltd., Jewels,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

G.F. 10-11, Gold Souk,

Fineness and Marking

S. L. Ph. 1, Gurgaon (E),

Distt. Gurgaon - 122002

(Haryana)

13.

L-2641250

30-10-2013

M/s. Bharat Jewellers,

Gold & Gold Alloys

1417

-

-

1999

Jewels,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

7255, Gur Bazar,

Fineness and Marking

Distt. Rewari - 123401,

(Haryana)

14.

L-2641351

30-10-2013

M/s. Bharat Jewellers,

Silver & Silver Alloys 2112

-

-

2003

Jewels,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

7255, Gur Bazar,

Fineness and Marking

Distt. Rewari - 123401,

(Haryana)

15.

L-2639970

31-10-2013

M/s Vanshika Electronics

Tungston Filament

814

- -

2004

Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.,

General Service

Plot No. 15, Sector - 3,

Electric Lamps

Growth Centre,

Bawal,

Distt. Rewari - 123501

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1430-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e (4) ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke o irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&2640046

1&11&2013

eS- ;qojkt b.MLVªhl]

fueTtuh; iEilsV

8034

&

&

2002

ch & 19] xkao cM+[ky]

,uvkbVh iQjhnkckn &

121001

(gfj;k.kk)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2-

,y&2648365

20&11&2013

eS- ,&ou b.MLVªhl]

vkx cq>kus ds fy,

4989

&

&

2006

oh & 14] jsM ØkWl jksM]

;kaf=kd >kx cukus dk

Hkkx ch] ,evkbZbZ]

>kx lkUæ

cgknqjx<+

ftyk >Ttj]

(gfj;k.kk)

3-

,y&2651152

27&11&2013

eS- iQk;jdse (, ;wfuV

lqokâk vfXu 'kked &

15683

&

&

2006

vkWiQ iQk;j lsiQVh

dk;Zdkfjrk vkSj

fMokbfll izk- fy-)

fuekZ.k

373] lSDVj & 24]

ftyk iQjhnkckn

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1430.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of

which are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Date

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-2640046

1-11-2013

M/s Yuvraj Industries,

Submersible

8034

- -

2002

B - 19, Village Badkhal,

Pumpsets

NIT, Faridabad - 121001

(Haryana)

2.

L-2648365

20-11-2013

M/s A-One Industries,

Foam Concentrate

4989

- -

2006

V - 14, Red Cross Road,

for Producing

Part B, MIE,

Mechanical

Bahadurgarh

Foam for Fire

Distt. Jhajjar,

Fighting

(Haryana)

3.

L-2651152

27-11-2013

M/s Firechem (A Unit

Portable Fire

15683

- -

2006

of Fire Safety Devices

Extinguishers -

Pvt. Ltd.),

Performance and

373, Sector - 24

Constructions

Distt. Faridabad ,

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3805

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1431-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e (4) ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke o irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&2653358

6&12&2013

eS- ,yds Vsyh¯yDl fy-]

ok;fo; xqfPNr dscy

14255

&

&

1995

(;wfuV & II)]

1100 oksYV rd vkSj

xkWo jugsjk [ksjk]

lfgr dh dk;Zdkjh

rglhy cYyHkx<+]

oksYVrk ds fy,

IykWV ua- 84 ds lkeus

lSDVj 25]

ftyk&iQkjhnkckn &

121005]

(gfj;k.kk)

2-

,y&2654562

6&12&2013

eS- Hkkjr cSjy ,.M Mªe

cUn fljs okys

1783

01

&

1993

eSU;wiQSDp¯jx da- izk- fy-]

cMs+ Mªe

[kkrk ua- 125@13@1]

12 feu-]

nq/kSyk /rhj jksM]

xkWo i`Fkyk]

ftyk&iyoy]

(gfj;k.kk)

3-

,y&2652154

26&12&2013

eS- ts- ,l- dSfedy

jksxk.kquk'kh izokg]

1061

&

&

1997

b.MLVªhl] 19 ,]

fiQuksfyd Vkbi

lat; dykSuh]

lSDVj 22]

iQkjhnkckn &121005]

(gfj;k.kk)

4-

,y&2653964

27&12&2013

eS- lqij xksYM ikbIl

;kaf=kdhl; vkSj

3601

&

&

1994

izk- fy-] 44 ds,e]

lkekU; mís'; ds

fnYyh jksgrd jksM]

fy, bLikr

cgknqjx<+ & 124507]

ufydk,¡

ftyk&>Ttj

(gfj;k.kk)

5-

,y&2654461

27&12&2013

eS- Hkkjr cSjy ,.M Mªe

[kqys fljs okys

13997

&

&

1994

eSU;wiQSDp¯jx da- izk- fy-]

cM+s Mªe

[kkrk ua- 125@13@1]

12 feu-]

nq/kSyk /rhj jksM]

xkWo i`Fkyk]

ftyk&iyoy]

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1431.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which

are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Date

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-2653358

6-12-2013

M/s Elkay Telelinks Ltd.

Aerial Bunched

14255

- -

1995

( Unit - II),

Cables for working

Village Ranhera Khera,

Voltage upto

Tehsil Ballabgarh,

and Including

Opp. Plot No. 84,

1100 Volts

Sector - 25,

Distt. Faridabad -

121005,

(Haryana)

2.

L-2654562

6-12-2013

M/s Bharat Berrel &

Drum, Large, Fixed

1783

01 -

1993

Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

End

Kh. No. 125/13/1, Min.,

Dudhola Dhatir Road,

Village Prithla,

Distt. Palwal

(Haryana)

3.

L-2652154

26-12-2013

M/s J. S. Chemical

Disinfectant Fluids,

1061

- -

1997

Industries,

Phenolic Type

19 A, Sanjay Colony,

Sector - 22,

Faridabad - 121005,

(Haryana)

4.

L-2653964

27-12-2013

M/s Supergold Pipes

Steel Tubes for

3601

- -

2006

Pvt. Ltd., 44 KM,

Mechanical and

Delhi Rohtak Road,

General Engineering

Village Rohad Nagar,

Purpose

Bahadurgarh - 124507,

Distt. Jhajjar,

(Haryana)

5.

L-2654461

27-12-2013

M/s Bharat Berrel &

Drum, Large, Open

13997

- -

1994

Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

End

Kh. No. 125/13/1, Min.,

Dudhola Dhatir Road,

Village Prithla,

Distt. Palwal,

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3807

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1432-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke ,oa irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&2656263

2&01&2014

eS- ;wuholZy dscy

ØklfyaDM iksyhbFkfyu

7098

01

&

1988

eSU;wiQSDpfjax da-]

jksf/r rkilq?kV`; vkofjr

jsyos xqM~l 'ksM ds lkeus]

dscy 1100 oksYV rd

iQjhnkckn & 122001]

rFkk lfgr dh dk;Zdkjh

(gfj;k.kk)

oksYVrk ds fy,

2-

,y&2647666

3&01&2014

eS- esVªks bfjxs'ku izk-fy-]

flapkbZ miLdj&

13488

&

&

2008

IykWV ua- 3] b.MLVªh;y ,fj;k] mRltZdh ikbi

lSDVj & 26]

i¼fr;ka

fHkokuh &127021]

(gfj;k.kk)

3-

,y&2655463

3&01&2014

eS- ykiQkxZ bf.M;k izk-fy-]

iksVZyS.M ikstsykuk&

1489

01

&

1991

oh ih vks fpfj;k]

lhesaV Hkkx 1]

rglhy pj[kh nknjh]

ÝykbZ ,'k vk/kfjr

fHkokuh &127021]

(gfj;k.kk)

4-

,y&2655968

3&01&2014

eS- ,l vkj ,l ToSyl]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq

1417

&

&

1999

(;wfuV vkWiQ ,l vkj ,l fy-)]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a

th- Vh- jksM]

eghurk ,oa eqgjkadu

vkxjk pkSd ds ikl]

ftyk iyoy & 121102]

(gfj;k.kk)

5-

,y&2659774

3&01&2014

eS- liQy iksyhelZ izk- fy-]

flapkbZ ra=kksa ds fNM+dko 14151

01

&

1999

jksgrd jksM]

;a=k gsrq iksyhbFkkbyhu

dykukSj]

ikbi

ftyk jksgrd &124113]

(gfj;k.kk)

6-

,y&2659572

9&01&2014

eS- fu;k IykLV izk- fy-]

ihohlh balqysfVM

694

&

&

1990

196] lsDVj &7]

dscy 1100 oksYV rd

vkbZ,eVh ekuslj]

rFkk lfgr dh dk;Zdkjh

xqMxkWo]

cksYrk ds fy,

(gfj;k.kk)

3808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7-

,y&2656869

13&01&2014

eS- vYiQk ,Dok b.MLVªhl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

[kljk ua- 1099]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

fdyk ua- 20] 11@3&2012]

feujy ty ds

17@6] eFkqjk jksM]

vykok)

ljiap dykSuh]

iQjhnkckn&121004]

(gfj;k.kk)

8-

,y&2662965

13&01&2014

eS- t; vkVks]

, lh LFkSfrd ?kaVk ehVj

13779

&

&

1999

dEiksusUVl fy-]

oxZ 1 vkSj 2

[kljk ua- 39@14] 15@1] 17@1]

[kakMlk jksM] >kM+lk]

Mkd?kj f[kM+dh nkSyk]

xqMxkWo&122004

(gfj;k.kk)

9-

,y&2664969

13&01&2014

eS- thfu;l csojsftl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

iqjkuk cl vMMs ds ikl]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

xkWo frxkWo]

feujy ty ds

iQjhnkckn&121101

vykok)

(gfj;k.kk)

10-

,y&2661660

27&01&2014

eS- T;ksfr b.MLVªht]

dUM;wVl iQkWj bySDVªhdy 9537

03

&

1983

2786] ,p,lvkbZvkbZMhlh]

bUlVkys'ku Hkkx 3

lSDVj &59

dUM;wVl vkWiQ

iQjhnkckn&121001]

bUlwysfVax eSfVfj;Yl

(gfj;k.kk)

11-

,y&2662864

27&01&2014

eS- ckok ihju nrk ey]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq] 1417

&

&

1999

ijos'k dqekj ljkiQ]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a

1461@6] fHkokuh LVs.M jksM]

eghurk ,oa eqgkjkadu

jksgrd& 124001]

(gfj;k.kk)

12-

,y&2663058

30&01&2014

eS- ;wuholZy dscy]

1100 oksYV rd dh]

694

&

&

1990

eSU;wiQSDpfjax da-]

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds

jsyos xqMl 'ksM ds lkeus]

fy, ih oh lh jksf/r

iQjhnkckn & 122001]

dscy

(gfj;k.kk)

13-

,y&2662763

31&01&2014

eS- , ,e Mk,eaM izk- fy-]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq] 1417

& &

1999

'kki ua- 2]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a

vxzoky ek£dV]

eghurk ,oa eqgkjkadu

lnj cktkj

xqMxkWo & 122001]

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3809

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1432.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of

which are given below in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-2656263

2.1.2014

M/s Universal Cable

Crosslinked

7098

01 -

1988

Manufacturing Co.,

polyethylene

Opp. Railway Goods Shed,

insulated PVC

Faridabad - 122001,

sheathed cables

(Haryana)

Pt.1 for working

voltage up to and

including 1100V

2.

L-2647666

03.01.2014

M/s. Metro Irrigation

Irrigation Equipment

13488

-

-

2008

Pvt. Ltd.,

Emitting Pipes Systems

Plot No.3, Industrial

Area, Sector - 26,

Bhiwani - 127021,

(Haryana)

3.

L-2655463

03.01.2014

M/s. Lafarge India

Portland Pozzolana

1489

01

-

1991

Pvt. Ltd.,

Cement Part 1 Fly

V.P.O. Chiriya,

Ash Based

Tehsil Charkhi Dadri,

Bhiwani - 127022,

(Haryana)

4.

L-2655968

03.01.2014

M/s. SRS Jewells

Gold & Gold Alloys

1417

-

-

1999

(A Unit of SRS Ltd.),

Jewellery/Artefacts -

G.T. Road,

Fineness and Marking

Near Agra Chowk,

Palwal- 121102,

(Haryana)

5.

L-2659774

03.01.2014

M/s. Safal Polymers,

Irrigation Equipment-

14151

01

-

1999

Pvt. Ltd.,

Sprinkler Pipes Part 1,

Rohtak Road,

Polyethylene Pipes

Kalanaur,

Distt. Rohtak - 124113,

(Haryana)

6.

L-2659572

09.01.2014

M/s Nia Plast Pvt. Ltd.,

PVC Insulated Cables

694

-

-

1990

196, Sector - 7,

For Working Voltage

IMT Manesar,

up to and Including

Gurgaon

1100V

(Haryana)

3810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

L-2656869

13.01.2014

M/sAlpha Aqua Industries,

Packaged Drinking

14543

-

-

2004

Khasra No.1099,

Water (Other Than

Kila No.20, 11/3-2012,

Natural Mineral Water)

17/6, Mathura Road,

Sarpanch Colony,

Faridabad - 121004,

(Haryana)

8.

L-2662965

13.01.2014

M/s JayAuto

AC StaticWatthour

13779

-

-

1999

Components Ltd.,

Meter

Khasra No.39/14, 15/1,

17/1,

Khandsa Road,

Village Mohannadpur,

Jharsa, Post Kherki

Dhaula, Gurgaon - 122004,

(Haryana)

9.

L-2664969

13.01.2014

M/s. Genius Beverages,

Packaged Drinking

14543

-

-

2004

Near Old Bus Stand,

Water (Other Than

Village Tigaon,

Natural Mineral Water)

Faridabad - 121101,

(Haryana)

10.

L-2661660

27.01.2014

M/s. Jyoti Industries,

Conduits for Electrical 9537

03

-

1983

2786, HSIIDC,

installation Part 3

Sector - 59,

Rigid Plain Conduits

Faridabad - 121001,

of Insulating Materials

(Haryana)

11.

L-2662864

27.01.2014

M/s. Bawa Piran Ditta Mal

Gold & Gold alloy

1417

-

-

1999

Purvesh Kumar Saraf,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

1461/6,

Fineness and Marking

Bhiwani Stand Road,

Rohtak - 124001,

(Haryana)

12.

L-2663058

30.01.2014

M/s Universal Cable

PVC Insulated Cables

694

-

-

1990

Manufacturing Co.,

for Working Voltage up to

Opp. Railway Goods Shed,

& including 1100V.

Faridabad - 122001,

(Haryana)

13.

L-2662763

31.01.2014

M/s. A.M. Diamond

Gold & Gold alloy -

1417

-

-

1999

Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 2,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Aggarwal Market,

Fineness and Marking

Sadar Bazar,

Gurgaon - 122001,

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3811

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1433-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke ,oa irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&2669373

13&02&2014

eS- ts ,e Mh b.MLVªhl

nzfor iSVªksfy;e xSlksa ds

4246

&

&

2002

ea>koyh jksM]

lkFk iz;qDr ?kjsyw xSl

xkWo tlkuk]

pwYgs

ftyk iQjhnkckn&121001]

(gfj;k.kk)

2-

,y&2669979

13&02&2014

eS- vkj ds iEil izk-fy-]

fueTtuh; iEilsV

8034

&

&

2002

IykWV ua- 5] izQS.Ml dkykSuh

vksYM iQjhnkckn pkSd ds ikl]

iQjhnkckn&121002]

(gfj;k.kk)

3-

,y&2669070

14&02&2014

eS- Jh djuh ToSyl]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq]

1417

&

&

1999

,iQ,iQ&15]xksYM lWd ekWy] vkHkw"k.k@f'kYi oLrq,a

CykWd&lh] lq'kkUr yksd&1

eghurk ,oa eqgjkadu

lSDVj&43]

xqMxkWo & 122002]

(gfj;k.kk)

4-

,y&2671057

14&02&2014

eS- liQy iksyhelZ izk-fy-]

flapkbZ miLdj&]

14151

02

&

2008

jksgrd jksM]

Hkkx 2 lgt la;ksth

dykukSj]

fLizadyj ikbi &

ftyk jksgrd & 124113]

(gfj;k.kk)

5-

,y&2671158

28&02&2014

eS- flgkx duLVªda'u da-]

[kMa+ts ds fy,

15658

&

&

2006

xkWo o Mkd?kj ehjku]

iwoZ <fyr daØhV

rglhy rks'kke]

CykWd

fHkokuh]

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1433.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which

are given below in the following schedule :—

3812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-2669373

13-2-2014

M/s J. M. D. Industries,

Domestic Gas Stoves

4246

- -

2002

Manjhawali Road,

for use with Liquefied

Village Jasana,

Petroleum Gases

Distt. Faridabad - 121001,

(Haryana)

2.

L-2669979

13-2-.2014

M/s. R. K. Pumps Pvt.Ltd.,

Submersible

8034

-

-

2002

Plot No. 5, Friends Colony,

Pumpsets

Near Old Faridabad Chowk,

Faridabad- 121002,

(Haryana)

3.

L-2669070

14.2.2014

M/s. Shree Karni Jewels,

Gold & Gold Alloys

1417

-

-

1999

FF-15, Gold Souk Mall,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Block- C, Sushant Lok-1,

Fineness and Marking

Sector- 43

Gurgaon -122002

(Haryana)

4.

L-2671057

14.2.2014

M/s. Safal Polymers,

Irrigation Equipment-

14151

02

-

2008

Rohtak Road,

Sprinkler Pipes Part 2,

Kalanaur,

Quick Coupled

Distt. Rohtak- 124113,

Polyethylene Pipes

(Haryana)

5.

L-2671158

28.2.2014

M/s. Sihag Construction Co., Precast concrete

15658

-

-

2006

V.P.O. Miran,

Blocks for Paving,

Tehsil Tosham,,

Bhiwani,

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1434-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

uke ,oa irk

ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1-

,y&2672463

3&3&2014

eS- vkj-vkj- b.MLVªht]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

&

&

2004

xkWo vkSj Mkd?kj ePNxj]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

rglhy cYyHkx<+]

fefujy ty ds

iQjhnkckn&121004

vykok)

(gfj;k.kk)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3813

2-

,y&2673364

7&3&2014

eS- ,ydks Iyl VsDuklsiQ]

futh lqj{kk miLdj

15298

02

&

2011

IykWV ua- 69] lSDVj &17]

Hkkx 2 lqj{kk iqQVfo;j

,p,lvkbZvkbZMhlh]

b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

cgknqjx<+&124505]

ftyk >Ttj]

(gfj;k.kk)

3-

,y&2676168

10&3&2014

eS- fdlku lsYl]

flapkbZ miLdj]

12786

&

&

1989

bUVjizkbfll]

ysVjyl flapkbZ ds fy,

vVsyh&duhuk jksM]

iksyhbFkhyhu ikbIl

lyheiqj] vVsyh e.Mh]

egsUnzx<+ & 123021]

(gfj;k.kk)

4-

,y&2675671

20&3&2014

eS- LokfLrd ikbil fy-]

lkekU; bathfu;jh]

280

&

&

2006

41 ds,e] fnYyh&jksgrd jksM]

vuqiz;ksxksa ds fy,

ohihvks vlkSnk]

e`nq bLikr dh rkj

ftyk >Ttj]

(gfj;k.kk)

5-

,y&2675772

20&3&2014

eS- LokfLrd ikbil fy-]

dsfcYl ds dop ds]

3975

&

&

1999

41 ds,e] fnYyh&jksgrd jksM]

fy, vYi dkcZu

ohihvks vlkSnk]

tLrhd`r bLikr rkjsa]

ftyk >Ttj]

vkd`fr rkjsa vkSj Vsi

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh @13%11º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1434.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which

are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L

Address of

Standard

the Licensee

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1.

L-2672463

3-3-2014

M/s R.R. Industries,

Packaged Drinking 14543

-

-

2004

Village & Post Machhgar,

Water (Other Than

Tehsil Ballabgarh,

Natural Mineral Water)

Faridabad - 121004,

Haryana

2.

L-2673364

7-3-.2014

M/s. Alko Plus Technosafe

Safety, Protective &

15298

02

-

2011

Plot No.69, Sector-17,

Occupational Footwear

HSIIDC Industrial Estate,

for Professional use

Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3.

L-2676168

10.3.2014

M/s. Kisan Sales,

Irrigation Equipment

12786

-

-

1989

Enterprises,

Polyethylene Pipes

Ateli-Kanina Road,

for Irrigation Laterals

Salimpur, Ateli Mandi,

Mahendergarh -123021,

Haryana

4.

L-2675671

20.3.2014

M/s. Swastik Pipes Ltd.,

Mild Steel Wire for

280

-

-

2006

41 KM, Delhi-Rohtak Road,

General Engg.,

VPO Asauda,

Purpose

Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana

5.

L-2675772

20.3.2014

M/s. Swastik Pipes Ltd.,

Low Carbon Galvanized 3975

-

-

1999

41 KM, Delhi-Rohtak Road,

Steel Wires, Formed

VPO Asauda,

Wires and Tapes for

Distt. Jhajjar,

Armouring of Cables

Haryana

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1435-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e (5) ds mifofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@ LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gSa%&

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykbZlsal la

ykbZlsal/kjh dk uke o irk

ykbZlsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe

jí djus dh

la-

lh ,e@,y-

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

frfFk

1

2

3

4

5

1-

,y&9408178

eS- ts-,l- dSfedYl]

fiQuksfyd VkbZi

11&10&2013

19&,] lat; dkyksuh]

jksxk.kquk'kh izokg

lSDVj &22]

1061% 1997

iQjhnkckn &121005]

(gfj;k.kk)

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1435.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3815

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

CM/L-

Standard covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/supspension

1

2

3

4

5

1.

L-9408178

M/s. J.S. Chemicals,

Disinfectant Fluids,

11-10-2013

19-A, Sanjay Colony,

Phenolic Type

Sector-22,

Faridabad- 121005

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:13]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1436-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk uko o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk ek la (Hkkx@

la-

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

dk 'kh"kZ

vuqHkkx) % o"kZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

1-

4721157

2014-04-01

esllZ Jh eqjyh ,Dok VsDuksyksftl

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543% 2004

,l ,iQ la- 289@1,] by;keqrwj iwoZ]

feujy ty ds vykok)

is:eyiqnqj] iksUuhdV~VSnqjS jksM]

by;keqrqwj iksLV] mM~MeyisV rkyqd]

fr:Iiqj&642 154

2-

4722058

2014-04-01

esllZ euh"k xSl vIyk;Ulsl izk;osV

nzfor isVªksfy;e xSlksa ds lkFk IS 4246% 2002

fyfeVsM

iz;qDr ?kjsyw xSl pwYgs

,l ,iQ la- 635@Hkkx II] psV~Vhiky;e]

dqfjph xkWo] bZpukjh] dks;EcÙkwj&641 021

3-

4722765

2014-04-03

esllZ vlksdk vykW;~l

dkWcZu ,oa dkWcZu esaxuhl

IS 814% 2004

,l ,iQ la- 344] uhykEcwj]

lajpuk bLikr dh /krq vkdZ

eqÙkqxkSUMuiqnqj iksLV]

osfYMax ds fy, vkofjr

dks;EcÙkwj&641 406

bySDVªksM

4-

4723868

2014-04-04

esllZ vkbfM;y ,Dok okVj

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543% 2004

,l ,iQ la- 251@3&,] u;k la- 86]

feujy ty ds vykok)

jsyos ykbu (nf{k.k)] y{ehiqje]

x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006

5-

4725266

2014-04-08

esllZ dhrhZyky dkfynkl TosylZ

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

IS 1417% 1999

izk;osV fyfeVsM]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&

913&917] ØkWl dV jksM] xk¡/hiqje]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

dks;EcÙkwj&641 012

3816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6-

47252670

2014-04-10

esllZ csLV bathfu;lZ iEIl

LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472% 1998

izk;osV fyfeVsM]

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd

59&B] rMkxe jksM] osykUMhiky;e

iEi

iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641 025

7-

4726369

2014-04-11

esllZ okloh raxk ekfyxS

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

IS 1417% 1999

228] eSlwj Vª.d jksM] lR;keaxye rkyqd] vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&

lr;keaxye] bZjksM&638 402

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgkjkadu

8-

4727270

2014-04-15

esllZ iQksdlu ,uthZ flLVe

lkSj likV ifV~Vdk laxzkgd&

IS 12933(Hkkx 1)%

,l ,iQ la- 2@388&,] b#xqj jksM]

Hkkx 1& vis{kk,¡

2003

fpfUu;eiky;e] dks;EcÙkwj&641 062

9-

4728676

2014-04-21

esllZ euh"k xSl vIyk;Ulsl izk;osV

?kjsyw fctyh ds [kk|&inkFkZ

IS 4250% 1980

fyfeVsM

ds feDlj (ihl dj rjy

,l ,iQ la- 635@Hkkx II] psV~Vhiky;e]

djus okyk ,oa filugkjk)

dqfjph xkWo] bZpukjh] dks;EcÙkwj&641 021

10-

4731362

2014-04-22

esllZ fjdks vIyk;salsl

fiVokW ,Y;qfefu;e ds crZu

IS 1660% 2009

,l ,iQ la- 352@4] 'kkLrk uxj

,l-vkbZ-,p-,l dksyuh] flaxuYywj]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 014

11-

4728777

2014-04-22

esllZ f'ko 'kfDr feujy okVlZ

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543% 2004

13&A@1] lsaxqUnj uxj] lrh eq[; lM+d

feujy ty ds vykok)

isfj;k lseqj iapk;r ,oa iksLV]

bZ jksM&638 004

12-

4733063

2014-04-30

esllZ t;Jh ,UVjizk;lsl

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543% 2004

1] uch uxj] (570&A@2] dqfjph xk¡o)]

feujy ty ds vykok)

psV~Vhiky;e jksM] iksrUuwj] enqDdjS CykWd]

dks;EcÙkwj (nf{k.k) rkyqd]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 023

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%11º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1436.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and Address (factory)

Title of the Standard

IS No./Part/Sec./Year

No.

No.

of the Party

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.

4721157

2014.04.01

M/s. Shri Murali Aqua

Packaged Drinking

IS 14543 : 2004

Technologes, SF No. 289/1A,

Water (Other Than

Elayamuthur East, Perumalpudhur,

Packaged Natural

Ponnikattithurai Road,

Mineral Water)

Elayamuthur (P.O.),

Udumalpet (Tk), Tiruppur-642154

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3817

2.

4722058

2014.04.01

M/s. Maneesh Gas Appliances

Domestic Gas Stoves for

IS 4246 : 2004

Private Limited,

use with Liquefied

SF No. 635/Part II, Chettipalayam

Petroleum Gases

Main Road,

Kurichi Village, Echanari,

Coimbatore - 641 021

3.

4722765

2014.04.03

M/s. Asoka Alloys

Covered electrodes for

IS 814 : 2004

SF No. 344, Neelambur

manual metal arc welding

Muthugoundenpudur (P.O.)

of carbon and carbon

Coimbatore - 641 406

manganese steel

4.

4723868

2014.04.04

M/s. Ideal Aqua Water

Packaged Drinking

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 251/3-A New No. 86,

Water (Other Than

Railwayline (South),

Packaged Natural

Lakshmipuram, Ganapathy,

Mineral Water)

Coimbatore - 641 006.

5.

4725266

2014.04.08

M/s. Kirtilal Kalidas Jewellers

Gold and Gold alloy

IS 1417 : 1999

Pvt. Ltd.

Jewellery/Artefacts -

913-917, Cross Cut Road, Gandhi-

Fineness and Marking

puram, Coimbatore - 641 012

6.

4725670

2014.04.10

M/s. Best Engineers Pumps

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

Pvt. Ltd.

Pumps for clear, cold

59/B, Thadagam Road,

water

Velandipalayam (P.O.)

Coimbatore - 641 025

7.

4725369

2014.04.11

M/s. Vasavi Thanga Maaligai

Gold and Gold alloy

IS 1417 : 1999

228, Mysore Trunk Road,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Sathyamangalam Taluk,

Fineness and Marking

Sathyamangalam,

Erode - 638 402

8.

4727270

2014.04.15

M/s. Focusun Energy Systems

Solar Flat Plate Collector -

IS 12933(Part 1) :

SF No. 2/388-A, lrugur Road,

Part 1 - Requirements

2003

Chinniampalayam,

Coimbatore - 641 062

9.

4728676

2014.04.21

M/s. Maneesh Gas Appliances

Specification for Domestic

IS 4250 : 1980

Private Limited,

Electric Food - Mixers

SF No. 635/Part II, Chettipalayam

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Main Road,

Kurichi Village, Echanari,

Coimbatore - 641 021

10.

4731362

2014.04.22

M/s. RIICO Appliances

Wrought Aluminium

IS 1660 : 2009

SF No. 352/4, Sastha Nagar,

Utensils

SIHS Colony, Singanallur,

Coimbatore - 641 014

11.

4728777

2014.04.22

M/s. Siva Sakthi Mineral Waters

Packaged Drinking

IS 14543 : 2004

13-A/1, Sengunthar Nagar,

Water (Other Than

Sathy Main Road,

Packaged Natural

Periya Semur Panchayat & P. O.,

Mineral Water)

Erode - 638 004.

1

2

3

4

5

6

3818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

4733063

2014.04.30

M/s.Jeyasri Enterprises

Packaged Drinking

IS 14543 : 2004

1, Nabi Nagar, (570-A/2,

Water (Other Than

Kurichi Village),

Packaged Natural

Chettipalayam Road, Pothanoor,

Mineral Water)

Madukarai Block, Coimbatore

(South) Taluk,

Coimbatore - 641 023.

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1437-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mi&fofu;eu (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS %&

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la-

ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@ jí fd, x, ykblsal

jí gksus dh

la-

lh ,e@,y&

ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe lEc¼ Hkkjrh;

frfFk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd

vizSy 2014 & 'kwU;

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1437.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

CM/L-

Standard covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/suspension

APRIL 2014- NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1438-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa A

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3819

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) tks fd

jn~n gksus dh

la-

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

jn~n gksus gSa] vxj gS]

frfFk

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1-

vkbZ ,l 2716 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2716 % 1972

15 ebZ] 2014

ekbjksckyku fu"d"kZ.k&

fof'kf"V

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

2-

vkbZ ,l 2753 (Hkkx 2) %

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2753 (Hkkx 2)%

15 ebZ] 2014

2014 mipkfjr ydM+h vkSj

1991

mipkj djus okys ?kksy esa

ifjj{kdksa ds vkdyu dh i¼fr;ka

Hkkx 2 rkWck (rkWcs ds dkcZfud

fijj{kd yo.kksa esa) Kkr djuk

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

3-

vkbZ ,l 3967 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3967 % 1975

15 ebZ] 2014

dp&fof'kf"V

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

4-

vkbZ ,l 3968 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3968 % 1967

15 ebZ] 2014

oSVy Nky&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

5-

vkbZ ,l 3969 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 3969 % 1975

15 ebZ] 2014

xkSjku Nky&fof'kf"V

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

6-

vkbZ ,l 4169 % 2014

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

vkbZ ,l vks 376 % 2011

/kfRod lkefxz;kW&,dk{kh;

ijh{k.k e'khuksa ds lR;kiu esa iz;qDRk

cy izek.ku midj.kksa ds va'k'kks/u

dh i¼fr (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

7-

vkbZ ,l 5127 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 5127 % 1969

15 ebZ] 2014

ccwy dh Nky&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

8-

vkbZ ,l 5128 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 5128 % 1969

15 ebZ] 2014

vokjSe Nky&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

9-

vkbZ ,l 5298 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 5298 % 1983

15 ebZ] 2014

vklou jsat vkSj vklou mit dk

fu/kZj.k djus dh fof/&fof'kf"V

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

10-

vkbZ ,l 35465 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 5465 % 1969

15 ebZ] 2014

lksukyh Nky&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

3820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11-

vkbZ ,l 6357 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6357 % 1971

15 ebZ] 2014

peM+k iQsVyhD;wfjax ds fy,

ly~iQsfVM rsy&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

12-

vkbZ ,l 8601 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 8601 % 1977

15 ebZ] 2014

peZ'kks/u mn~;ksx ds fy,

eksbjksckyku uV (iwjs vkSj

dqpys gq,)&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

13-

vkbZ ,l 9004 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 9004 % 1978

15 ebZ] 2014

beyh ds chtksa dks chtkdj.k&

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

14-

vkbZ ,l 9833 % 2014

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

[kkn~; lkexzh] vkS"kf/;ksa vkSj

is;ty ds lEidZ esa vkus okys

IykfLVDl esa bLrseky gksus okys

dyjaV~l ,oa fixesaVl dh fuf'pr

lwph (igyk iqujh{k.k)

15-

vkbZ ,l 10032 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 10032 % 1981

15 ebZ] 2014

iQkWm.kMªh esa iz;ksxkFkZ vkxsZfud uks

csd (lsy~iQ ls¯Vx) ckbZaMj&

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

16-

vkbZ ,l 11987 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 11987 % 1986

15 ebZ] 2014

peMs+ dh fiQfu¯'kx ds fy,

osDl&bey~'ku&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

17-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

12643&1 % 2009

vkys[kh izkSn~;ksfxdh&vkys[kh

izkSn~;ksfxdh miLdj ,oa

in~ofr;ksa dh lqj{kkRed vis{kk,¡

Hkkx 1 lkekU; vis{kk,¡

18-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

12643&2 % 2010

vkys[kh izkSn~;ksfxdh&vkys[kh

izkSn~;ksfxdh miLdj ,oa

in~ofr;ksa dh lqj{kkRed vis{kk,¡

Hkkx 2 izhisl ,oa izsl miLdj

in~ofr;kW

19-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

12643&3 % 2010

vkys[kh izkSn~;ksfxdh&vkys[kh

izkSn~;ksfxdh miLdj ,oa

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3821

i¼fr;ksa dh lqj{kkRed vis{kk,¡

Hkkx 3 ckbZ¯Mx ,oa fiQfu¯'kx

miLdj rFkk i¼fr;ka

20-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

12643&4 % 2010

vkys[kh izkS|ksfxdh&vkys[kh

izkS|ksfxdh miLdj ,oa

i¼fr;ksa dh lqj{kkRed vis{kk,¡

Hkkx 4 duo²Vx miLdj rFkk

i¼fr;ka

21-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

12643&5 % 2010

vkys[kh izkS|ksfxdh&vkys[kh

izkS|ksfxdh miLdj ,oa

i¼fr;ksa dh lqj{kkRed vis{kk,¡

Hkkx 5 l~VS.kM&,yksu IysVu

izSfll

22-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks@Vh vkj

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

12885 % 2008

uSuksa izkS|ksfxdh&uSuksa izkS|ksfxdh

ls lac¼ O;olkf;d ;wfuVksa esa

LokLF; ,oa lqj{kk jhfr;ka

23-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks@Vh vkj

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

13121 % 2011

uSuksa izkS|ksfxdh&uSuksa lkexzh ds

tksf[ke dk ewY;kadu

24-

vkbZ ,l 13606 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13606 % 1993

15 ebZ] 2014

peM+k izØe.k ds fy, laf'y"V

lYiQksDyksjhud`r olknzo&fof'kf"V

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

25-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

14005 % 2010

i;kZoj.kh; izca/u iz.kkfy;kW&

i;kZoj.kh; fu"iknu ewY;kadu

ds mi;ksx lfgr i;kZoj.kh; izca/u

iz.kkyh dk p;uc¼ dk;kZUo;u

ds fy, fn'kkfunsZ'k

26-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

14051 % 2010

i;kZoj.kh; izca/u&lkexzh izokg

ykxr ys[kkadu&lkeU; <kapk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27-

vkbZ ,l 14488 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 14488 % 1998

15 ebZ] 2014

peM+s ds fy, lyiQkbVsM olknzo&

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

28-

vkbZ ,l 16114 % 2013

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

3&lk;uksfijhMhu&fof'kf"V

29-

vkbZ ,l 16154 % 2014

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

ty esa ?kqyu'khy fiQYe&

fof'kf"V

30-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks@Vh ,l

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

80004&1 % 2010

uSuksa izkS|ksfxdh&'kCnkoyh Hkkx 1

dksj 'kCnkoyh

31-

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks@Vh ,l

15 ebZ] 2014

NA

NA

80004&3 % 2010

uSuksa izkSn~;ksfxdh&'kCnkoyh Hkkx 3

dkcZu uSuksa oLrq,¡

32-

vkbZ ,l @ vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 (Hkkx 3) %

15 ebZ] 2014

80000&4 % 2006

1995@vkbZ ,l vks 31&3 %

ek=kk ,oa bZdkb;kW Hkkx 4 ;kaf=kdh

1992

33-

vkbZ ,l @ vkbZ ,l vks

15 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 (Hkkx 4) %

15 ebZ] 2014

80000&5 % 2007

1995@vkbZ ,l vks 31&4 %

ek=kk ,oa bZdkb;kW Hkkx 5 mQ"ek

1992

xfrd

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002 {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh]

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

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

¹lanHkZ% ih;wch@th,u-1/V-IIº

dyk ,e- ofj;j] funs'kd (fons'kh Hkk"kk vkSj izdk'ku)

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2014

S.O. 1438.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Inidan Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of

the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on

the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No.

Indian Standards

Establishment

Standards to be cancelled,

cancellection

Established

if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.

IS 2716 : 2013

15 May, 2014

IS 2716 : 1972

15 May, 2014

Myrobalan Extract-specification

(Second Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3823

2.

IS 2753 (Part 2) : 2014

15 May 2014

IS 2753 (Part 3) : 1991

15 May 2014

Method for estimation of

Preservatives in treated timber and

in treating solutions Part 2

Determination of copper (in copper

organic preservative salt)

(Second Revision)

3.

IS 3967 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 3967 : 1975

15 May 2014

Specification (Second Revision)

4.

IS 3968 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 3968 : 1967

15 May 2014

Wattle Bark-Specification

(First Revision)

5.

IS 3969 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 3969 : 1975

15 May 2014

GORAN Bark-Specification

(Second Revision)

6.

IS 4169 : 2014

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Metallic Materials-Calibration of

Force Proving Instruments used

for the verification of Uniaxial

Testing Machines (Second Revision)

7.

IS 5127 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 5127 : 1969

15 May 2014

Babul Bark-Specification

(First Revision)

8.

IS 5128 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 5128 : 1969

15 May 2014

AVARAM Bark-Specification

(First Revision)

9.

IS 5298 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 5298 : 1983

15 May 2014

Method for determination of

distillation range and distillation

yield (Second Revision)

10.

IS 5465 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 5465 : 1969

15 May 2014

Sonali Bark-Specification

(First Revision)

11.

IS 6357 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 6357 : 1971

15 May 2014

Sulphated oil for leather

fatliquoring-Specification

(First Revision)

12.

IS 8601 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 8601 : 1977

15 May 2014

Myrobalan nuts (whole and

crushed) for tanning industry-

specification (First Revision)

13.

IS 9004 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 9004 : 1978

15 May 2014

Tamarind seed testa-specification

(First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

IS 9833 : 2014

15 May 2014

NA

NA

List of pigments and colorants

for use in plastics in contact

with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals

and drinking water

(First Revision)

15.

IS 10032 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS 10032 : 1981

15 May 2014

Organic no blake (self setting

binders for use in foundries-

Specification (First Revision)

16.

IS 11987 : 2013 Wax

15 May 2014

IS 11987 : 1986

15 May 2014

Emulsion for leather finishing-

Specification (First Revision)

17.

IS /ISO 12643-1 : 2009

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Graphic technology- Safety

requirements for graphic

technology equipment and

systems-Part 1 : General

requirements

18.

IS /ISO 12643-2 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Graphic technology- Safety

requirements for graphic

technology equipment and

systems-Part 2 : Prepress

and press equipments and

systems

19.

IS /ISO 12643-3 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Graphic technology- Safety

requirements for graphic

technology equipment and

systems-Part 3 : Binding

and finishing equipment

and systems

20.

IS /ISO 12643-4 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Graphic technology- Safety

requirements for graphic

technology equipment and

systems-Part 4 : Converting

equipments and systems

21.

IS /ISO 12643-5 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Graphic technology- Safety

requirements for graphic

technology equipment and

systems-Part 4 : Stand-alone

platen presses

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3825

22.

IS /ISO/TR 12885 : 2008

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Nanotechnologies -

Health and safety practices

in occupational settings

relevant to nanotechnologies

23.

IS /ISO/TR 13121 : 2011

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Nanotechnologies -

Nanomaterials risk evaluation

24.

IS /13606 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS /13606 : 1993

15 May 2014

synthetic sulphochlorinated

fatliquors for leather processing-

specification (First Revision)

25.

IS /ISO 14005 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Environmental Management

Systems -Guidelines for the

phased implementation of an

Environmental Management

System, including the use of

environmental performance

evaluation

26.

IS /ISO 14051 : 2011

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Environmental Management

Material -Flow Cost Accounting-

General Framework

27.

IS / 14488 : 2013

15 May 2014

IS / 14488 : 1998

15 May 2014

Sulphited fatliquors for leather-

specification (First Revision)

28.

IS 16114 : 2013, 3-

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Cyanopyridine - specification

29.

IS 16154 : 2014 Water soluble

15 May 2014

NA

NA

film - specification

30.

IS /ISO/TS 80004-1 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Nanotechnologies -

Vocabulary Part 1 Core Terms

31.

IS /ISO/TS 80004-3 : 2010

15 May 2014

NA

NA

Nanotechnologies -

Vocabulary Part 3 Carbon

nano objects

32.

IS /ISO/ 80000-4 : 2006

15 May 2014

IS / 1890 (Part 3) :

15 May 2014

Quantities and Units Part 4

1995/ISO 31-3 : 1992

Mechanics

33.

IS /ISO/ 80000-5 : 2007

15 May 2014

IS / 1890 (Part 4) :

15 May 2014

Quantities and Units Part 5

2001/ISO 31-4 : 1992

Thermodyanmics

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

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

Pune, Kochi.

[Ref. PUB/GN-1/V-II]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1439-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti=k] (lkIrkfgd) ds Hkkx&II] [k.M&3]

mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 16 twu ls 22 twu] 2013 esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 1163]

rkjh[k 21 twu] 2013 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe ds 200-000 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 494-20 ,dM+

(yxHkx) esa] dks;ys ds iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe ds ,d Hkkx esa

dks;yk vfHkizkIr gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] blls layXu

vuqlwph esa o£.kr 128-658 gsDVs;j ;k 317-92 ,dM+ eki dh Hkwfe mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkjksa ds lkFk] dk vtZu djus

ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS %

1- bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@451] rkjh[k 20

fnlEcj] 2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] 'kgMksy] eè; izns'k] ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001

ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006] NRrhlx<+ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k

tk ldrk gS A

2- mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 8 ds mica/ksa dh vksj è;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/ gS %µ

vtZu dh ckcr vkifRr;ka %

^^8(1) dksbZ O;fDr] tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kjk 7 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu vf/lwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc¼ gS]

vf/lwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/dkjksa dk vtZu

fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxk A

Li"Vhdj.k % bl /kjk ds vFkkZUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Loa;

[kuu lafdz;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg, A

(2) mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke izkf/dkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke izkf/dkjh] vkifRrdrkZ dks

Lo;a lqus tkus] fof/ O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkap] ;fn dksbZ

gks] djus ds i'pkr~ tks og vko';d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kjk 7 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu vf/lwfpr Hkwfe ds ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml

ij ds vf/dkjksa ds laca/ esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+ksa ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds laca/ esa vkifRr;ksa ij

viuh fliQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVsZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu'p; ds fy, nsxk A

(3) bl /kjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk gdnkj

gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj bl vf/fu;e ds v/hu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSa A**

3- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001] dks mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 3 ds v/hu

vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 }kjk Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987

esa izdkf'kr }kjk l{ke izkf/dkjh fu;qDr fd;k gS A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3827

vuqlwph

cVqjk CykWd foLrkj&II] lksgkxiqj {ks=k

ftyk&'kgMksy] eè; izns'k

¹js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@451] rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 2013º

lHkh vf/dkj %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

gYdk

la[;k

esa)

uEcj

1-

jkeiqj

107

890

lksgkxiqj

'ksgMksy

128-658

Hkkx

dqy % 128-658 gsDVj ;k 317-92 ,dM+

1- xzke jkeiqj (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;k%

150 ls 164] 206(Hkkx)] 315] 320 ls 351] 352 (Hkkx)] 353 (Hkkx)] 354ls 365] 368 (Hkkx)] 369 (Hkkx)] 370 ls 396]

397 (Hkkx)] 398 ls 431] 432(Hkkx)] 436 ls 442] 443(Hkkx)] 445 (Hkkx)] 453 (Hkkx)] 454 ls 458] 459(Hkkx)] 460] 461]

528(Hkkx)] 529] 530(Hkkx)] 553(Hkkx)] 554] 556 ls 760] 768 ls 775] 779 ls 781]787 ls 800] 804 (Hkkx)] 805 ls 820] 829 ls 847]

857] 858] 859(Hkkx)] 3303] 3304] 3329 A

lhek o.kZu%µ

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj ds IykWV la[;k&397] 459 ls gksdj 460] 461 ds nf{k.kh lhek]453]

445] 443 ls 436 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 432 ls] 422 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 528] 530] 553 ls] 553] 554] 556] 557 ds nf{k.kh

lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke jkeiqj ds nf{k.kh lhek ij fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq ^^[k** ls vkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj ds Hkkxr% nf{k.kh lhek 627] 630] 631] 638] 639] 641 ds iwohZ

lhek] 859 ls] 857] 847] 829] 830] 820 ds iwohZ lhek] 804 ls] 800] 787] 788] 781] 779] 775] 771] 768 ds iwohZ lhek

ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq ^^x** ls vkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 768] 769] 759] 760] 744] 743] 742] 315] 736]

320 ds mRrjh lhek 206 ds iwohZ lhek] 206 ls] 164 ds mRrjh lhek] 151] 150 ds iwohZ lhek 150 ds mRrjh lhek xzke

jkeiqj ds Hkkxr% if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A

?k&d

js[kk fcUnq ^^?k** ls vkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 353] 369] 368] 397 ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq

^^d** ij feyrh gS A

¹la- 43015@37@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1439.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1163

dated 21st June, 2013 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India(weekly), Part-II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii) dated June 16 to June 22, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal

in 200.000 hectares (approximately) or 494.20 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the schedule

annexed to that notification;

3828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said land described in the

Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 128.658 hectares or 317.92 acres with all

rights in or over the said land described in the schedule appended hereto:

1. The plan bearing number SECLI/BSP/ CGM(PLG)/ LAND/ 451 dated the 20th December, 2013 of the area

covered by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh or in the Office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue

Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur, 495006, Chhattisgarh.

2. Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

Objection to Acquisition:

"8(1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under sub-section (1) of section 7 has

been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the

land or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation : It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself

desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be

undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every Objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in

respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make

different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government,

containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the

decision of .that Government.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act ".

3. The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata, 700001, has been appointed by the Central Government as

the Competent Authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the 20th March, 1987,

published the Gazette of India, in Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) dated the 4th April, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Batura Block Extension-II, Sohagpur Area

District- Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/451 dated the 20th December, 2013]

All Rights:

Sl.

Name of

Patwari halka

Bando-bast Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Village

number

number

hectares

1.

Rampur

107

890

Sohagpur

Shahdol

128.658

Part

Total :

128.658 hectares or 317.92 acres

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3829

1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Rampur (Part): 150 to 164, 206(P), 315, 320 to 351, 352(P), 353(P), 354 to

365, 368(P), 369(P), 370 to 396, 397(P), 398 to 431, 432(P), 436 to 442, 443(P), 445(P), 453(P), 454 to 458, 459(P), 460,

461, 528(P), 529, 530(P), 553(P), 554, 556 to 760, 768 to 775, 779 to 781, 787 to 800, 804(P), 805 to 820, 829 to 847, 857,

858, 859(P), 3303, 3304, 3329.

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' and passes in village Rampur through plot number 397, 459, along southern boundary of

plot number 460, 461, through 453, 445, 443, along southern boundary of plot number 436, through 432, along

southern boundary of plot number 422, through 528, 530, 553, along southern boundary of plot number 553, 554,

556, 557 and meets at point 'B' on the southern boundary of village Rampur.

B-C

Line starts from point 'B' and passes along partly southern boundary of village Rampur, eastern boundary of plot

number 627, 630, 631, 638, 639, 641, through 859, along eastern boundary of plot number 857, 847, 829, 830, 820,

through 804, along eastern boundary of plot number 800, 787, 788, 781, 779, 775, 771, 768, and meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line starts from point 'C' and passes in village Rampur along northern boundary of plot number 768, 769, 759, 760,

744,743,742,315,736,320, eastern boundary of plot number 206, through 206, along northern boundary of plot

number 164, eastern boundary of plot number 151, 150, northern boundary of plot number 150, partly western

boundary of village Rampur and meets at point 'D'.

D-A

Line starts from Point 'D' and passes in Village Rampur through plot number 353, 369, 368, 397 and meets at starting

Point ‘A’.

[No. 43015/37/2012-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1440-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe esa dks;yk

vfHkizkIr gksus dh laHkkouk gS _

vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@447] rkjh[k 16 flrEcj] 2013 dk ftlesa mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr

Hkwfe {ks=k ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk dksjck] NRrhlx<+ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV]

dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006 (NRrhlx<+)

ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS_

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (1) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa

dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS _

mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/lwpuk ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/

ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/d vf/dkjh ;k foHkkxkè;{k (jktLo)] lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006 (NRrhlx<+)

ls µ

(i) mDr vf/lwpuk dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds v/hu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh {kfr ds

fy;s mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 ds v/hu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk _ ;k

(ii) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr ;k mDr vf/fu;e

dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (4) ds v/hu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mls mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk

13 dh mi/kjk (1) ds [kaM (i) ls [kaM (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/r

lHkh ekufp=kksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxk A

3830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

dksjdksek CykWd] dksjck {ks=k] ftyk &dksjck] NRrhlx<+

¹js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@447] rkjh[k 16 flrEcj] 2013º

Øe

xzke dk

xzke

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

uEcj

gYdk

esa)

la[;k

1-

cqansyh

vulosZM

23

dksjck

dksjck

250-000

Hkkx

2-

<saxqjMhg

vulosZM

24

dksjck

dksjck

100-735

Hkkx

3-

eq:ukjk

vulosZM

22

dksjck

dksjck

100-913

Hkkx

4-

eVekj

vulosZM

22

dksjck

dksjck

137-940

Hkkx

5-

dksjdksek

257

24

dksjck

dksjck

1261-000

Hkkx

dqy % 1850-588 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 4572-80 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

lhek o.kZu%µ

d&[k

js[kk xzke cqansyh& <saxqjMhg ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke <saxqjMhg ds eè; Hkkx xzke

dksjdksek ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk xzke dksjdksek ds iwohZ Hkkx esa fcUnq ^^[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksjdksek ds iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ

xzke dksjdksek&eVekj ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk xzke dksjdksek&eVekj ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eVekj vkSj eq:ukjk ds ds eè;

Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke eq:ukjk&cqansyh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A

?k&d

js[kk xzke eq:ukjk&cqansyh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cqansyh ds iwohZ Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ

vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A

¹la- 43015@11@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1440.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in

the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, Whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/ CGM (PLG)/ LAND/447, dated the 16th September,2013

containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the Office of the Collector,

District Korba, Chhattisgarh or at the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the Office

of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006, Chhattisgarh;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid schedule;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3831

Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned schedule may--

(i)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any

action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or

(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license

ceasing to have effect or under sub- section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have

effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure

incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Korkoma Block, Korba Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM (PLG)/LAND/447, dated the 16th September, 2013]

Sl.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Village

No.

Halka

hectares

number

1.

Bundeli

Unsurveyed

23

Korba

Korba

250.000

Part

2.

Dhengurdih

Unsurveyed

24

Korba

Korba

100.735

Part

3.

Murunara

Unsurveyed

22

Korba

Korba

100.913

Part

4.

Matmer

Unsurveyed

22

Korba

Korba

137.940

Part

5.

Korkoma

257

24

Korba

Korba

1261.000

Part

Total : 1850.588 hectares (approximately) or 4572.80 acres (approximately)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Bundeli- Dhengurdih and passes through middle

part of village Dhengurdih, northern part of village Korkoma and meets at point "B".

B-C

Line starts from point 'B' on the eastern part of village Korkoma and passes through eastern and southern part of

village Korkoma and meets at Point "C" on the common boundary of villages Korkoma-Matmar.

C-D

Line starts from point 'C' on the common boundary of villages Korkoma- Matmar and passes through middle

part of village Matmar and Murunara and meets at Point "D" on the common boundary of villages Murunara-

Bundeli.

D-A

Line starts from point 'D' on the common boundary of villages Murunara- Bundeli and passes through eastern part

of village Bundeli and meets at starting Point "A".

[No. 43015/11/2013-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

3832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1441-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh vkSj Hkkjr ds jkti=k] (lkIrkfgd) ds Hkkx&II]

[k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 12 ebZ µ 18 ebZ] 2013 esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1021]

rkjh[k 14 ebZ] 2013 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V ifj{ks=k dh 314-780 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 777-84 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

Hkwfe] ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkjksa dk vtZu djus 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 dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj eè; izns'k ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku

gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 314-780 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 777-84 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki dh Hkwfe ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml

ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkjksa ds lkFk v£tr dh tkuh pkfg, _

vr%] vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.k djrh gS fd

vuqlwph esa o£.kr 314-780 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 777-84 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki dh] ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkjksa ds

lkFk v£tr dh tkrh gS _

bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@445] rkjh[k 16 tqykbZ]

2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] vuqiiqj eè; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006 (NRrhlx<+) ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k

tk ldrk gS A

vuqlwph

lhry/kjk&dqjtk Hkwfexr [knku & II, glnso {ks=k]

ftyk & vuqiiqj (eè; izns'k)

¹js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@445] rkjh[k 16 tqykbZ] 2013º

Hkw&lrg vf/dkj %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

tujy

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

gYdk

uEcj

esa)

la[;kad

1-

dksjtk

42

126

dksrek

vuqiiqj

230-888

Hkkx

2-

nyny

42

428

dksrek

vuqiiqj

30-337

Hkkx

3-

iMjhikuh

42

584

dksrek

vuqiiqj

23-981

Hkkx

4-

jsaoMk

48

895

dksrek

vuqiiqj

29-574

Hkkx

dqy % 314-780 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 777-84 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

1- xzke dksjtk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %

160(Hkkx)] 161(Hkkx)] 222] 239 ls 242] 243(Hkkx)] 244(Hkkx)] 245(Hkkx)] 246] 248 ls 265] 266(Hkkx)] 267(Hkkx)] 268]

269(Hkkx)] 270 ls 276 A

2- xzke nyny (Hkkx) es v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3833

145(Hkkx)] 146] 147] 152(Hkkx)] 153(Hkkx)] 154 ls 166] 167(Hkkx)] 168] 169] 170(Hkkx)] 171(Hkkx)] 172(Hkkx)] 174(Hkkx)]

175(Hkkx)] 176(Hkkx)] 177(Hkkx)] 178(Hkkx) A

3- xzke iMjhikuh (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %

38 ls 40] 61 ls 74] 76] 90(Hkkx)] 91 ls 94] 95(Hkkx)] 98(Hkkx)] 99 ls 109] 110(Hkkx)] 111] 112(Hkkx)] 114(Hkkx)] 153(Hkkx)]

154 ls 177] 84@180(Hkkx) A

4- xzke jsaoMk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %

420(Hkkx)] 421 ls 423] 424(Hkkx)] 425 A

lhek o.kZu%µ

d&[k

js[kk xzke dksjtk esa fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksjtk ds IykV la[;k 242 ds if'peh vkSj mÙkjh lhek] 160]

161 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 242@1] 222@2[k] 222@2d] 242@1] 239] 240] 242@1 ds if'peh lhsek] 243] 244] 245 ls

gksdj fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk xzke dksjtk ds IykV la[;k 245] 246 ds mÙkjh] 262 ds if'peh vkSj mÙkjh 261] 259 ds Hkkxr% if'peh] 285] 249

ds nf{k.kh lhek] 248] 250] 251] 253 ls gksdj xzke dksjtk&iMjhikuh ds lfEefyr lhsek esa fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk xzke iMjhikuh ds IykV la[;k 84@180] 90] 95] 98 ls gksdj 76] 74] 61] 63] 64] 65] 40] 38@1 ds if'peh lhek]

38@1 ds mÙkjh] 38@1] 39@1] 39@2 ds iwohZ lhek] 114] 112] 110 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke iMjhikuh &nyny ds lfEefyr

lhsek esa fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A

?k&M-

js[kk xzke nyny ds IykV la[;k 152] 153] 147] 145] 167] 170] 171] 172] 175] 174] 176] 177] 178 ls xqtjrh gqbZ

xzke nyny&ijlkikuh ds lfEefyr lhsek esa fcUnq ^^M-** ij feyrh gS A

M-&p

js[kk xzke nyny&ijlkikuh] xzke dksjtk &ijlkikuh] xzke dksjtk&uDrhVksyk] xzke jsaoMk&uDrhVksyk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr

lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke jsaoMk&uDrhVksyk ds lfEefyr lhsek esa fcUnq ^^p** ij feyrh gS A

p&d

js[kk xzke jsaoMk ds IykV la[;k 420 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 425] 424 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 420 ls gksrh gqbZ xzke dksjtk esa izos'k

dj IykV la[;k 242 ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A

¹la- 43015@09@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1441.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1021

dated the 14th May 2013, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act. 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India (weekly), Part 11, Section

3, Sub-section (ii) dated the May 12- May 18, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 314.780

hectares (approximately) or 777.84 acres(approximately) land with surface rights in or over such land 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 aforesaid report and after consulting the Government

of Madhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 314.780 hectares (approximately) or 777.84 acres (approximately)

with surface rights in or over such land described in 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 land measuring 314.780 hectares (approximately) or 777.84 acres (approximately) with

surface rights in or over such land described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

3834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/445, dated the 16th July, 2013 of the area covered under this

notification may be inspected at the Office of the Collector, Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh or at the Office of the Coal Controller,

1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or at the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat

Road, Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh;

SCHEDULE

Sheetaldhara-Kurja Underground Mine-II, Hasdeo Area

District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

[ Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/445, dated the 16th July, 2013]

Surface Rights:

Sr.

Name of

Patwari

General

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

village

halka

Number

hectares

Number

1.

Korja

42

126

Kotma

Anuppur

230.888

Part

2.

Daldal

42

428

Kotma

Anuppur

30.337

Part

3.

Padripani

42

584

Kotma

Anuppur

23.981

Part

4.

Rewnda

48

895

Kotma

Anuppur

29.574

Part

Total:-314.780 hectares (approximately)

or 777.84 acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Korja (Part):

160(P), 161(P), 222, 239 to 242, 243(P), 244(P), 245(P), 246, 248 to 265, 266(P), 267(P), 268, 269(P), 270 to 276.

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Daldal (Part):

145(P), 146, 147, 152(P), 153(P), 154 to 166, 167(P), 168, 169, 170(P), 171(P), 172(P), 174(P), 175(P), 176(P), 177(P),

178(P) .

3.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Padripani (Part):

38 to 40, 61 to 74, 76, 90(P), 91 to 94, 95(P), 98(P), 99 to 109, 110(P), 111, 112(P), 114(P), 153(P), 154 to 177, 84/180(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Rewnda (Part):

420(P), 421 to 423, 424(P), 425.

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' in village Korja and passes along western and northern boundary of plot number 242/1,

through plot number 160, 161, along western boundary of plot number 242/1, 222/2kh, 222/2k, 242/1, 239, 240,

242/1, through 243, 244,245 and meets at point 'B'.

B-C

Line passes in village Korja along northern boundary of plot number 245, 246, western and northern boundary of

plot number 262, partly western boundary of plot number 261, 259, southern boundary of plot number 258, 249,

through 248, 250, 251, 253 and meets at point 'C' on the common boundary of villages Korja-Padripani.

C-D

Line passes in village Padripani through plot number 84/180, 90, 95, 98, western boundary of plot number 76, 74, 61,

63, 64, 65, 40, 38/1, northern boundary of plot number 38/1, eastern boundary of plot number 38/1, 39/1, 39/2,

through 114, 112, 110 and meets at point 'D' on the common boundary of villages Padripani-Daldal.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3835

D-E

Line passes in village Daldal through plot number 152, 153, 147, 145, 167, 170, 171, 172, 175, 174, 176, 177, 178 and

meets at point 'E' on the common boundary of villages Daldal-Parsapani.

E-F

Line passes along partly common boundary of villages Daldal-Parsapani, Korja-Parsapani, Korja-Naktitola, Rewnda-

Naktitola and meets at point 'F' on the common boundary of villages Rewnda-Naktitola.

F-A

Line passes in village Rewnda through plot number 420, along southern boundary of plot number 425, 424,

through 420 then enter in village Korja and passes through 242 and meets at starting point 'A' .

[No. 43015/09/2012-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1442-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (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 ds jkti=k] Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii)]

rkjh[k 27 vDrwcj] 2012] esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3238] rkjh[k 16 vDrwcj] 2012

}kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V ifj{ks=k dh 22-814 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 56-37 ,dM+ (yxHkx) Hkwfe] ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k

ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkjkas ds lkFk vtZu djus 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 dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj eè; izns'k ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku

gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 22-814 gsDVs;j ;k 56-37 ,dM+ eki dh Hkwfe] ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg

vf/dkjksa ds lkFk v£tr dh tkuh pkfg, _

vr%] vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd vuqlwph esa o£.kr 22-814 gsDVs;j ;k 56-37 ,dM+ eki dh Hkwfe] ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkj ds lkFk

v£tr dh tkrh gS _

bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@440] rkjh[k 22 ekpZ]

2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] 'kgMksy] eè; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006 (NRrhlx<+) ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k

tk ldrk gSA

vuqlwph

uoxkao Hkwfexr [kku CykWd] lksgkxiqj {ks=k]

ftyk & 'kgMksy] (eè; izns'k)

¹js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@440] rkjh[k 22 ekpZ] 2013º

Hkw&lrg vf/dkj %

1- Cykd & 1

(d) jktLo Hkwfe %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

gYdk

la[;kad

esa)

la[;kad

1-

[kUukFk

99

171

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

6-912

Hkkx

dqy % 6-912 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 17-08 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

3836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2- Cykd & 2

(d) jktLo Hkwfe %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

gYdk

la[;kad

esa)

la[;kad

1-

[kUukFk

99

171

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

15-902

Hkkx

dqy %15-902 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 39-29 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

egk;ksx (Cykd 1+2) % 6-912 +15-902 dqy % 22-814 gsDVj (yxHkx)

;k 56-37 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

1- xzke [kUukFk (Hkkx) es v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k % 1285] 1287 ls 1290]] 1292 ls 1303] 1312 ls 1314] 1540]

1550 ls 1558] 1560 ls 1577] 1579 ls 1588] 1589(Hkkx)] 1591] 1592] 1598 ls 1603] 1609 ls 1612 A

lhek o.kZu%µ

Cykd & 1 %

d&[k

js[kk xzke [kUukFk esa fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 1285 ds nf{k.kh] 1285] 1303] 1301] 1312] 1313]

1314 ds if'peh lhsek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1314] 1300] 1299] 1298] 1297 ds mÙkjh lhek] 1293] 1292 ds if'peh lhsek ls gksrh

gqbZa fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1292 ds mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A

?k&d

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1292] 1290 ds iwohZ] 1289] 1288] 1287 ds nf{k.kh] 1285 ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A

Cykd & 2 %

d&1&[k&1

js[kk xzke [kUukFk esa fcUnq ^^d&1** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 1581] 1612] 1609] 1603 ds nf{k.kh lhsek ls gksrh

gqbZ fcUnq ^^[k&1** ij feyrh gS A

[k&1&x&1

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1603] 1601] 1600] 1599] 1598 ds if'peh] 1588] 1592] 1591 ds nf{k.kh lhsek ls

gksrh gqbZa fcUnq ^^x&1** ij feyrh gS A

x&1&?k&1

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1591 ds iwohZ vkSj mÙkjh] 1589 ls gksdj 1560]1558] 1540 ds iwohZ vkSj mRrjh lhek ls

gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^?k&1** ij feyrh gS A

?k&1&M-&1

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1540] 1552] 1551] 1550 ds mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^M-&1** ij feyrh

gS A

M-&1&p&1

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1550] 1554] 1555] 1571] 1572] 1573] 1574] 1576] 1577 ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh

gqbZ fcUnq ^^p&1** ij feyrh gS A

p&1&d&1

js[kk xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 1577] 1579 ds nf{k.kh] 1581 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d&1** ij

feyrh gS A

¹la- 43015@09@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3837

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014

S.O. 1442.— Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 3238

dated the 16th October, 2012, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) 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 27th October, 2012, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire

22.814 hectares (approximately) or 56.37 acres (approximately) land with surface rights in or over such land specified

in the Schedule appended to that notification.

And, whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 ef the said Act, has made his report to the Central

Government;

And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government

of Madhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 22.814 hectares or 56.37 acres with surface rights in or over such

land as described in 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 land measuring 22.814 hectares or 56.37 acres with surface rights in or over such land

as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/ 440, dated the 22nd March, 2013 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected at the Office of the Collector, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh or at the Office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue

Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh.

SCHEDULE

Navagaon Underground Mine Block, Sohagpur Area

District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/ 440, dated the 22nd March, 2013]

Surface Rights

1. Block-1:

A Revenue Land

Sl.

Name of

Patwari

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.village

halka

Number

hectares

Number

1.

Khannath

99

171

Sohagpur

Shahdol

6.912

Part

Total: 6.912 hectares or 17.08 acres

2. Block -2:

A Revenue Land

Sl.

Name of

Patwari

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

village

halka

Number

hectares

Number

1.

Khannath

99

171

Sohagpur

Shahdol

15.902

Part

Total: - 15.902 hectares or 39.29 acres

Grant Total (Block 1+2):- 6.912+15.902=22.814 hectares (approximately)

or 56.37 acres (approximately)

3838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Khannath (Part):- 1285, 1287 to 1290, 1292 to 1303, 1312 to 1314, 1540, 1550

to 1558, 1560 to 1577, 1579 to 1588, 1589(P), 1591,1592,1598 to 1603,1609 to 1612.

Boundary Description:

Block -1:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' in village Khannath and passes along southern boundary of plot number 1285, western

boundary of plot number 1285, 1303,1301,1312,1313,1314 and meets at point 'B'.

B-C

Line passes in village Khannath along northern boundary of plot number 1314,1300,1299,1298,1297, western

boundary of plot number 1293,1292 and meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line passes in village Khannath along northern boundary of plot number 1292 and meets at point 'D'.

D-A

Line passes in village Khannath along eastern boundary of plot number 1292, 1290, southern boundary of plot

number 1289, 1288, 1287, eastern boundary of plot number 1285 and meets at starting point 'A'.

Block - 2 :

A-1-B-1 Line starts from point 'A-1' in village Khannath and passes along southern boundary of plot number

1581,1612,1609,1603 and meets at point 'B-1'.

B-1-C-1 Line passes in village Khannath along western boundary of plot number 1603, 1601, 1600, 1599, 1598, southern

boundary of plot number 1588, 1592,1591 and meets at point "C-1".

C-1-D-1 Line passes in village Khannath along eastern and northern boundary of plot number 1591, through 1589, eastern

and northern boundary of plot number 1560,1558,1540 and meets at point "D-1".

D-1-E-1 Line passes in village Khannath along northern boundary of plot number 1540, 1552, 1551, 1550 and meets at point

"E-1".

E-1-F-1 Line passes in village Khannath along eastern boundary of plot number 1550, 1554, 1555, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574,

1576, 1577 and meets at point "F-1" .

F-1-A-1 Line passes in village Khannath along southern boundary of plot number 1577,1579, eastern boundary of plot

number 1581 and meets at starting point A-1".

[No. 43015/09/2011-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1443-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (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- 1253] rkjh[k 3 tqykbZ] 2013 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k (lkIrkfgd)] Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k twu 30 &tqykbZ 6]

2013] esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkjkas dk vtZu

djus 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 dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj eè; izns'k ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku

gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 102-181 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 252-49 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe ds Hkw&lrg

vf/dkj v£tr fd, tkus pkfg, _

vr%] vc dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 102-181 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 252-49 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe ds Hkw&lrg

vf/dkj v£tr fd, tkrs gSa _

bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@448] rkjh[k 7 uoEcj]

2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] mefj;k (eè; izns'k) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700 001 ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495 006 (NRrhlx<+) ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k

tk ldrk gSA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3839

vuqlwph

fiukSjk fMfiyfjax CykWd] iQst&2] tksfgyk {ks=k]

ftyk & mefj;k] (eè; izns'k)

¹js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@448] rkjh[k 7 uoEcj] 2013º

Hkw&lrg vf/dkj %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

tujy

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.k

la-

uke

gYdk

la[;kad

esa)

la[;kad

1-

nsojh vegkbZ

67

334

ukSjkstkckn

mefj;k

65-730

Hkkx

2-

fiukSjk

67

413

ukSjkstkckn

mefj;k

36-451

Hkkx

dqy % 102-181 gsDVj (yxHkx)

;k 252-49 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

1- xzke nsojh vegkbZ (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

87(Hkkx), 88(Hkkx), 104(Hkkx), 105(Hkkx), 106(Hkkx), 107(Hkkx), 108(Hkkx), 109(Hkkx), 110(Hkkx), 111(Hkkx), 112 ls 130, 131(Hkkx),

132(Hkkx), 133 ls 139, 140(Hkkx), 143(Hkkx), 145(Hkkx), 147(Hkkx), 148 ls 183, 184(Hkkx), 185(Hkkx), 190(Hkkx), 191(Hkkx), 192(Hkkx), 193,

194(Hkkx), 195(Hkkx), 196(Hkkx) A

2- xzke fiukSjk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

493(Hkkx), 495(Hkkx), 496(Hkkx), 547(Hkkx), 549(Hkkx), 550(Hkkx), 551, 552, 553(Hkkx), 557(Hkkx), 558 ls 563, 565(Hkkx),

578 ls 587, 598(Hkkx), 599, 600, 605, 633(Hkkx) A

lhek o.kZu%µ

d&[k

js[kk] xzke nsojh vegkbZ esa ^^d** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;kad 145,147,143,140,131,88,105,106,107/2,

107/1, 108, 109, 110,111 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj xzke fiukSjk esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj IykV la[;kad 547, 549, 550, 553,

557, 496, 495, 493, 565 ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk] xzke fiukSjk ds IykV la[;kad 565 ls gksdj IykV la[;kad 563] 578] 586 dh iwohZ lhek] 587] 598 dh iwohZ vkSj

nf{k.kh lhek] 599 dh mÙkjh vkSj iwohZ lhek] 600] 605 dh iwohZ lhek ls tkrh gS vkSj ^^x** fcUnq ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk] xzke fiukSjk ds IykV la[;kad 605 dh nf{k.kh lhek vkSj 633 ls gksdj tkrh gS fiQj xzke nsojh vegkbZ esa izos'k djrh

gS vkSj IykV la[;kad 185, 184, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196/1 ls gksrh gqbZ xqtjrh gS vkSj ^^?k** fcUnq ij feyrh gS A

?k&d

js[kk] xzke nsojh vegkbZ ds IykV la[;kad 196/1, 196/2, 145 ls xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A

¹la- 43015@05@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014

S.O. 1443.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1253

dated the 3rd July, 2013, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act. 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India (weekly), Part - II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii) dated June 30- July 6, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 102.181

hectares (approximately) or 252.49 acres (approximately) land with Surface Rights in or over the land specified in the

Schedule appended to that notification.

3840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 aforesaid report and after consulting the Government

of Madhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 102.181 hectares (approximately) or 252.49 acres (approximately)

with Surface Rights in or over the land 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 land measuring 102.181 hectares (approximately) or 252.49 acres (approximately) with

Surface Rights in or over the land described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/448, dated the 7th November, 2013 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Umaria (Madhya Pradesh) or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue

Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495 006 (Chhattisgarh);

SCHEDULE

Pinoura Depillaring Block,' Phase-lInd, Johilla Area

District Umaria (Madhya Pradesh)

Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 448, dated the 7th November, 2013

Surface Rights:

Sl.

Name of

Patwari

General

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

village

halka

Number

hectares

Number

1.

Deori

67

334

Nowrozabad

Umaria

65.730

Part

Amhai

2.

Pinoura

67

413

Nowrozabad

Umaria

36.451

Part

Total:-102.181hectares (approximately)

or 252.49 acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Deori Amhai (Part):

87(P), 88(P), 104(P), 105(P), 106(P), 107(P), 108(P), 109(P), 110(P), 111(P), 112 to 130, 131(P), 132(P), 133 to 139, 140(P),

143(P), 145(P), 147(P), 148 to 183, 184(P), 185(P), 190(P), 191(P), 192(P), 193, 194(P), 195(P), 196(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pinoura (Part): 493(P), 495(P), 496(P), 547(P), 549(P), 550(P), 551, 552,

553(P), 557(P), 558 to 563, 565(P), 578 to 587, 598(P), 599, 600, 605, 633(P).

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' in village Deori Amhai and passes through plot number 145,147,143,140,131,88,105,106,

107/2, 107/1, 108, 109, 110,111 then enter in village Pinoura and passes through 547, 549, 550, 553,557,496,495,493,565

and meets at point 'B'.

B-C

Line passes in village Pinoura through plot number 565, along eastern boundary of plot number 563, 578, 586,

eastern and southern boundary of plot number 587, 598, northern and eastern boundary of plot number 599,

eastern boundary of plot number 600, 605 and meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line passes in village Pinoura along southern boundary of plot number 605, through 633 then enter in village

Deori Amhai and passes through 185,184,190,191,192,194,195,196/1 and meets at point 'D'.

D-A

Line passes in village Deori Amhai through plot number 196/1, 196/2, 145 and meets at starting point 'A'.

[No. 43015/05/2011-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3841

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1444-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj pSUubZ iÙku

U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 95@2012) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@04@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&33011@9@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Chennai Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/04/2014.

[No. L-33011/9/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 9th April, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 95/2012

[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 Chennai Port Trust and their workman]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Port & Dock Labour Union

No. 1/675, 1st Street,

Muthamizh Nagar

Chennai-600118

AND

The Chairman

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Chennai Port Trust No. 1,

Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-600001

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: Sri A. Kalaiselvan,

Petitioner Union

K. Dhanalakshmi,

Advocates

For the 1st Party/

: Sri S.P. Patel, Advocate

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No.L-33011/9/2012-IR (B-II)

dated 22.11.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of Chennai

Port Trust (1) in deducting huge amount towards

holidays and rest days in the payment of wage

revision arrears without the knowledge of the

employees (2) in denying deputation allowance to

the employees of CME and CE departments at par

with the employees who have been posted to work

under the control of Chief Vigilance Officer (3) in

denying advance payment of Notional Holidays to

all the maintenance side employees (4) in denying

the basic pay and other allowances to S/Sri T.

Rathinam and N. Penchellaiah, Sr. Attenders (H) at

par with Sri M. Perumal, Sr. Attender (H) with

retrospective effect, is legal and justified? What relief

the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 95/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder after the

Counter Statement was filed.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner is a Registered Trade Union and is

one of the Trade Unions recognized by the Management

of Chennai Port Trust. The petitioner has more than 276

workers on its roll as on date. The petitioner has raised

certain demands with the Management. However, there

was no response from them. So the petitioner had served

strike notice on the Respondent placing charter of

demands. The respondent had deducted amount paid

towards holidays and rest days while paying the wage

revision arrears without the knowledge of the employees.

The employees were allowed to avail one day off with half

a day salary or one and half days’ salary without off when

they were deputed to work on holidays. Without notice to

the employees the Respondent had deducted huge

amounts from the wage revision arrears. The petitioner

union has submitted a representation to the Respondent

on 05.07.2010 requesting to refund the deducted amount

but the Respondent did not give any reply to this demand.

So this was included in the strike notice. The Union had

submitted representation to the Respondent on 22.06.2012

demanding deputation allowance. This demand was not

met favourably. The Respondent is liable to pay deputation

allowance to the employees of CME and CE Department

who are all working under the control of Deputy

3842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Conservator at par with the employees who were paid

deputation allowance under the control of Chief Vigilance

Officer with retrospective effect. The Respondent used to

make advance payment for notional holidays to all

employees on the maintenance side. Though a

representation was made to continue the payment to

Marine Division employees, there was no reply from the

Management. All the employees who are working under

the control of Deputy Conservator are being paid advance

payment for notional holidays. Payment to the employees

of SE Marine Division was stopped without any reason.

The concerned employees are entitled to advance

payment for notional holidays. The employees by name

Rathinam, Perumal and Penchellaiah were appointed at

the same time and Rathinam was fixed as Senior to Perumal

in the post of Hospital Orderly. When these employees

were holding the post of Attender, they wanted to apply

for the post of Shore Mazdoor. As they were not eligible

to apply for the post of Shore Mazdoor, they applied for

reversion to the post of Hospital Orderly and accordingly

they were reverted to this post on 01.10.1993, 01.08.1993

and 01.10.1993 respectively. As they did not get the post

of Shore Mazdoor they had approached the Management

to restore their original post. In the pay bills for the month

of March 2009, it was noticed that basic pay of Perumal

was Rs. 7,195 while that of Rathinam and Penchellaiah

was Rs. 6,695 only. All the employees having been

promoted to the post of Senior Attender on the same day,

their Basic Pay should have been one and the same.

Rathinam and Penchellaiah are entitled to pay and

allowance in par with that of Perumal. An award may be

passed directing the Respondent to refund the amount

deducted from the wage revision arrears towards holidays

and rest days, to pay deputation allowance to the

employees of CME and CE departments who are posted to

work under the control of Deputy Conservator at par with

the employees who have been posted to work under the

control of Chief Vigilance Officer, to make advance payment

for notional holidays to all the employees working under

the maintenance side at par with operative side employees

and also to pay the Basic Pay and other allowances to

Rathinam and Penchellaiah at par with the pay and

allowances of Perumal with retrospective effect.

4.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

By settlement dated 19.01.2010, the wages of the

Port and Dock Workers of Major Ports were revised. Arrears

of pay and allowances from the period from 01.01.2007 to

31.01.2010 was paid on 15.04.2012 while calculating the

arrears of pay and allowances for the above period, the

wages paid for the rest day and holidays were verified and

excess payments were adjusted in the arrears paid. On

verification of the pay and allowance statements in respect

of holidays, it was noticed that employees of Mechanical

and electrical Engineering Department were paid one and

half days’ wages though they were entitled only for half

days’ wages with compensatory off. In respect of rest

days’ wages some of the employees of Mechanical and

Electrical Engineering Department were paid one and half

days’ wages without compensatory off though they were

entitled for one days’ wages with compensatory off only.

It is accordingly excess amount payable was adjusted in

the arrears of pay and allowances. It is incorrect to state

that deputation allowance has been denied to the

employees of CME and CE Departments at par with those

working under the Vigilance Officer. A separate Vigilance

Department was formed for each port based on the

recommendations made in the report on Cadre

Restructuring. Employees of other departments who have

been posted in Vigilance Department were paid deputation

allowance earlier. However, this was subsequently

discontinued. At present no deputation allowance is

payable to Officers or employees drawn from other

departments and posted in the Vigilance Department on

working arrangement basis. From the year 1980, advance

payment of wages for 9 closed holidays were being made

to the operative staff who are made to work on holidays.

However, due to stoppage of coal and iron ore the Port

Trust has decided to reduce the advance payment of wages

for non-closed holidays from 9 to 7 for the calendar year

2013. Advance payment could not be effected as earlier in

view of the financial constraints faced by the Trust. The

Chairman of the Port Trust has agreed to consider the

request of Rathinam and Penchallaiah to fix their pay in

par with that of Perumal and also to promote them to the

post of Senior Attender by restoring the seniority as earlier.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5.

In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has denied the

allegations made in the Counter Statement and also

reiterated its case in the Claim Statement.

6.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documentary evidence consisting

of Ext.W1 to Ext.W15 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M4.

7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in deducting

amount towards rest days and holidays from the

wage revision arrears is correct?

(ii)

Whether the employees of CME and CE Departments

of the Chennai Port Trust working under the Deputy

Controller are entitled to Deputation Allowance in

par with the employees who have been working

under the Chief Vigilance Officer?

(iii)

Whether the Respondent is justified in stopping

advance payment for notional holidays to the

employees on the maintenance side?

(iv)

Whether employees Rathinam and Penchellaiah are

entitled to have their pay fixed in par with that of

Perumal?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3843

Point No. 1

8.

According to the petitioner, the practice that was

followed for years was that the employees who were posted

to work on holidays were allowed either to avail one day

off with half day salary or one and half days’ salary without

availing off. However, at the time of payment of wage

revision arrears, the Respondent had deducted huge

amounts from the wage revision arrears of employees as

excess amount paid towards holidays and rest days. The

stand of the Respondent in the Counter Statement is that

on verification of the statement regarding pay and

allowance drawn in respect of holidays and rest days it

was noticed that some employees of Mechanical and

Electrical Engineering Department were paid more amount

than they were entitled. The wages payable for the holidays

and rest days were worked out and payment was

regularized after adjusting the excess amount paid out of

the arrears payable, it is stated.

9.

The Senior Deputy Secretary in General

Administration Department of the Respondent has been

examined on the side of the Respondent. During his cross-

examination, he has stated that deduction was made from

the amount due to the employees and that notice of this

was not given to the employees. He has added that the

issue was covered by the settlement dated 01.01.2007.

However this settlement is not produced. In the written

arguments submitted on behalf of the Respondent it is

stated that the issue has been covered by the settlement

on wage revision of Port and Dock Workers on 19.01.2010

and the petitioner was not entitled to raise the issue at all.

The settlement dated 19.01.2010 has been marked as

Ext.M1. On going through the terms of settlement in Ext.M1

it could be seen that there was no decision to adjust the

amount paid towards holiday wages. Clause-21 of the

settlement states that there will be no change in the existing

method of calculation of holiday wages. There is no

reference to wages payable for rest days at all.

10.

It is clear from the Claim Statement of the petitioner

that payment of wages for holidays and rest days for the

employees was made as per the existing norms. What is

stated by the Respondent is that on verification excess

amount was seen paid and this was adjusted towards the

amount payable as arrears. However, the Respondent has

not produced any evidence to show that the amount paid

was in excess of the amount actually due. On the other

hand it could be seen from the Claim Statement and the

Affidavit of the petitioner it was on the basis of the practice

followed that the payment has been made. It was not proper

on the part of the Respondent to deduct the amount from

the wage arrears and that also without any notice to the

concerned employees. Since the matter is not covered by

Ext.M1, the Respondent cannot take shelter under the

terms of this also. The concerned employees are entitled

to have the amount refunded to them. The point is

answered accordingly.

Point No. 2

11.

It is the case of the petitioner that the employees of

CME and CE Departments who are working under the

control of Deputy Conservator are entitled to deputation

allowance in par with those working under the control of

Chief Vigilance Officer. The case of the Respondent is that

the Vigilance Department is run on a separate basis. A

separate Vigilance Department was formulated based on

the recommendations of the report of the Cadre

Restructuring and Pay Revision Committee. The committee

has recommended that there would be a separate Vigilance

Department for each Port, the post of Vigilance Officer will

be filled on deputation basis and the other Officer and

Staff under him as far as possible be drawn from other

departments of the Trust so that they could keep their lien

in their parent department. This recommendation was

approved by the Ministry. Though earlier deputation

allowance was paid to those working in Vigilance

Department, this was later discontinued. According to

the Respondent no deputation allowance is payable since

the staff were taken from other departments on working

arrangement basis. There is no case for the petitioner that

even now deputation allowance is being paid to those

employees from other departments working in the Vigilance

Department. The claim of the petitioner is that those in the

CME and CE departments working under Deputy

Conservator also should be paid deputation allowance in

par with the employees in the Vigilance Department. For

one thing there is no payment of deputation allowance to

the employees in the Vigilance Department drawn from

other departments. In any case, whether Vigilance

Department, CME and CE Departments or other

departments, all the employees are employed by the

Chennai Port Trust and in that case, there would not be

any question of payment of deputation allowance even if

they are sent to other departments on working arrangement.

I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this

respect. The point is answered against the petitioner.

Point No. 3

12.

The next demand of the petitioner is that the

employees of SE Marine Division were made advance

payment of notional holidays, but now it is stopped.

According to the petitioner there is no justification in

stopping this advance payment. The Respondent has

admitted in the Counter Statement that from the year 1980

advance payment of wages for 9 non-closed holidays used

to be made to the operative staff who were brought to

work on those holidays. However, according to the

Respondent, due to stoppage of coal and iron ore, the

matter was discussed and it was decided to reduce advance

payment of wages for non-closed holiday from 9 to 7 for

the calendar year 2013. Ext.M4 shows the decision to

restrict payment of wages to 7 non-closed holidays was

for the year 2013 only. It could be seen that this decision

was taken by the Trust in the particular circumstances.

3844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The decision is taken subject to the implementation of the

award of National Industrial Tribunal which is to be

finalized. In fact the decision to make advance payment

was taken in the year 1980 by the then Chairman for the

reason that the employees are brought on for work on

most of the 9 non-closed holidays. In the existing

circumstance, the Trust has felt that it is not necessary to

bring all the employees for work on all 9 closed holidays.

The decision seems to have been taken in this background.

So there is no justification in the petitioner claiming that

they should be paid for 9 non-closed holidays in advance.

This point is also answered against the petitioner.

Point No. 4

13.

The next demand of the petitioner is that wages of

two employees Rathinam and Penchellaiah should be

fixed in par with that of Perumal. In fact, even in the

Counter Statement the Respondent has admitted that the

Chairman of the Trust has given his nod to consider the

request and to promote them to the post of Senior Attender

by restoring the seniority. In the argument notes submitted

on behalf of the Respondent also this statement is

repeated. The Respondent has also produced Ext. M3 in

this respect. Ext. M3 is the copy of the file relating to the

demand on behalf of Rathinam and Penchallaiah. As seen

from this, the Secretary has recommended to take steps to

promote Rathinam and Penchellaiah on par with Perumal

and restore their seniority over Perumal.

14.

The Counter Statement has been filed by the

Respondent in March 2013. The recommendation as seen

in Ext. M3 was made as early as in September 2013. However,

according to the petitioner, the two employees are yet to

get the relief on the basis of their demand. The Respondent

has not produced any document to show that the demand

of the two workers have been granted. Their pay has to be

re-fixed and they are to be promoted. It is a case of relief

having been denied even if they are admitted to be entitled

to the same. The two workers are entitled to the relief

claimed. The point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

15.

On the basis of my findings above, an award is

passed as follows:

(i)

The Respondent is directed to refund the amount

that was deducted from the wage revision arrears of

the employees as excess amount paid for holidays

and rest days.

(ii)

The Respondent is also directed to fix pay and other

allowances of the employees Rathinam and

Penchellaiah in par with that of Perumal with

retrospective effect and pay the amount due to them.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 9th April, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri R. Santhanam

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri D. Pandiyan

Management

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

18.09.2001

Reply letter from CMO to Sri M.

Perumal

Ex.W2

March 2009 Pay bill of Sri T. Rathinam

Ex.W3

March 2009 Pay bill of Sri M. Perumal

Ex.W4

March 2009 Pay bill of Sri N. Penchalaiah

Ex.W5

31.07.2009

Letter from Secretary, Chennai

Port Trust to ALC(C)

Ex.W6

23.11.2009

Representation by petitioner to

Respondent

Ex.W7

-

Arrear working sheet of Sri G.

Ponnuvel and others

Ex.W8

05.05.2010

Representation under RTI Act by

the petitioner

Ex.W9

04.06.2010

Reply by the Respondent under

RTI Act

Ex.W10

04.06.2010

Representation by the Employees

to the petitioner

Ex.W11

22.06.2010

Representation by the petitioner

to the Respondent

Ex.W12

04.07.2010

Representation by the petitioner

to the Respondent

Ex.W13

05.07.2010

Representation by the petitioner

to the Respondent

Ex.W14

21.07.2010

Reply from CMO to petitioner

Ex.W15

29.09.2010

Strike notice by the Petitioner

Union

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

19.01.2010

Copy of settlement on wage

revision, retirement benefits and

conditions of service of Port and

Dock Workers at the Major Ports

Ex.M2

26.07.2010

Copy of revision of Pay and

Allowances of Class-I and II

Officers in the Major Ports Trusts

and Dock Labour Boards Letter

No. A-29018/5/2006-PEI

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3845

Ex.M3

24.01.2013 Copies of noting of

Chairman’s

approval

and

connected papers on the subject

matter of restoration of seniority

of M/s. T. Rathinam and N.

Penchaliah, Sr. Attender (H),

Medical Department

Ex.M4

-

Copies of the papers relating to

National Holidays.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1445-—vkS|ksfxd vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 02@2014) izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@135@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/04/2014.

[No. L-12011/135/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 13th March, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 2/2014

(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 Vijaya Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

The President

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Vijaya Bank Workers Organization

Union

No. 60/2, Big Street, Triplicane

Chennai-600005

AND

The Regional Manager

: 2nd Party/

Vijaya Bank Regional Office,

Respondent

123, Marshalls Road, Egmore

Chennai-600008.

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: Sri S.D. Srinivasan,

Petitioner Union

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

: Ms. M.S. Annapoorna,

Respondent

Authorized Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/135/2005-IR (B-II)

dated 13.12.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Vijaya

Bank in denying compassionate appointment to the

dependents of their deceased employees is legal

and justified? What relief the dependents of the

deceased employees are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 2/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in reply to

the Counter Statement.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these :

The petitioner is a registered Trade Union recognized

by the Respondent Bank. Scheme for appointment on

compassionate grounds was in vogue in the Respondent

Bank since 1980. The scheme was modified in the year

1982 to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment

even to the dependents of those who demit office on

medical grounds. The scheme underwent changes in 1988

and in 1999. By circular dated 20.11.2004, the Respondent

introduced a scheme for payment of ex-gratia replacing

the scheme for compassionate appointment. Prior to the

introduction of the scheme in November 2004 the

Respondent did not consider the applications received

from the dependents of the employees who died in harness

since the year 2000. The circular stated that such cases

also would be considered under the ex-gratia scheme. The

dependents of the four employees who died after 2000

and prior to 2004 have been denied appointments under

compassionate ground by the Respondent. Denial of

employment to the dependents is not fair or proper. Since

the representations from the petitioner were not considered

favourably by the Respondent, the Industrial Dispute has

been raised. On failure of the conciliation, the matter was

sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment. Since the Ministry declined to refer the

dispute, the petitioner had approached the High Court

of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court had set aside the

order and directed the Govt. to refer the dispute to the

3846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tribunal. It is accordingly, the matter has come up for

consideration before this Tribunal. The denial of

compassionate appointment and substituting the same

with financial compensation is totally inhuman. An order

may be passed holding that the action of the Management

in denying compassionate appointment to the families of

the employees who died prior to the introduction of

financial compensation in 2004 is not justified and is illegal

and also directing the Management to grant

compassionate appointment to the dependents of the four

employees named in the petition as per the scheme

prevalent prior to 2004.

4.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

Against the schedule of reference by the Ministry

of Labour, the petitioner has made a modified claim in the

Claim Statement. There was surplus manpower in all banks

and in financial institutions and Govt. of India had been

thinking about the ways and means to reduce the surplus

manpower. Even after introduction of the voluntary

retirement scheme, surplus manpower was available. In

the circumstances vacancies were not available and the

Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank had passed a

resolution on 29.01.2001 deferring the scheme for

compassionate appointments. On 02.12.2002, the Board

has passed a resolution for the suspension of the

prevailing scheme for appointment on compassionate

grounds till formation of a substitute scheme. The Govt.

of India had advised the Indian Bank Association to

issue guidelines to the Banks to formulate their own

scheme for payment of monetary assistance in lieu of

appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the

Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank evolved a

new scheme for payment of ex-gratia relief in lieu of

compassionate appointment. The scheme was circulated

by circular dated 20.11.2004. This scheme superseded the

earlier scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The scheme of 2004 entitles the dependent of an employee

who dies while in service to receive monetary relief in lieu

of compassionate appointment subject to other terms and

conditions of the scheme. In supersession of the scheme

of 2004, another scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount

in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds was

formulated in 2007. As per the said scheme, appointment

of the dependent of the deceased employee will be made

in cases where the employee died while performing his

official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or

dacoity or if the employee died within 5 years of his first

appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years

whichever is later. The petition is without any merits and

is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the

allegations made in the Counter Statement and reiterating

the contentions in the Claim Statement.

6.

The evidence in the case consists of the documents

marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W10 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M9. No

oral evidence was adduced by either side.

7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the dependents of the four employees

named in the Claim Statement who died in harness

are entitled to appointment on compassionate

grounds?

(ii)

What other is the relief, if any, available to the above

dependents?

The Points

8.

The petitioner which is a registered union

recognized by the Respondent Bank had raised the dispute

alleging that the Respondent had been denying

appointment on compassionate ground to the dependents

of its deceased employees. However, in the Claim Statement

the petitioner has confined its relief to the dependents of

four of the employees who died while in service, during

the period from November 2000 and August 2003.

9.

The respondent Bank had scheme for appointment

under compassionate grounds as early as in 1980. This

continued till November 2004 with some modification from

time to time, when it was superseded by the scheme for

payment of ex-gratia. According to the petitioner the

dependents of the four employees while in service had

made application to the Respondent requesting for

appointment on compassionate grounds. However, their

applications were not responded to by the Respondent. It

is the stand of the petitioner that since the concerned

employees died prior to the introduction of the new

scheme by which ex-gratia payment was introduced, the

dependents are entitled to appointment on compassionate

grounds. According to the petitioner, the replacement of

the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground on

a later date would not disentitle the dependents from

getting an appointment on compassionate grounds in the

Respondent Bank.

10.

The stand of the Respondent is that the scheme for

compassionate appointment having been replaced by

the scheme for ex-gratia payment, the dependents are not

entitled to appointment in the Bank. According to the

Respondent, all the banks were having surplus manpower

and as directed by the Government, Voluntary Retirement

Scheme was introduced in all the banks. However, even

after this there was surplus manpower and the Government

had instructed the Board of Associations of the Banks to

advise all the banks to formulate new schemes for payment

by ex-gratia instead of appointment on compassionate

grounds. According to the Respondent the Board of

Directors had taken a decision suspending appointment

on compassionate ground on applications that were

pending and have subsequently introduced the new

scheme for ex-gratia payment superseding the scheme of

appointment on compassionate grounds. According to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3847

the Respondent, appointment on compassionate ground

is not the right of the dependent of the employee. So the

scheme that is prevalent as on the date on which the

application of the dependents will be considered is

applicable and not the one that was prevailing as on the

date of the death of the employee or the date on which the

application was made by the dependent.

11.

The petitioner has produced the copies of

applications given by the concerned dependents for

appointment on compassionate grounds. The circulars of

the Respondent Bank regarding compassionate

appointment are also produced and are marked as Ext.W1

to Ext.W3. The Respondent also has produced some of

the circulars. Ext.M3 is the resolution passed by the Board

of Directors of the Respondent for the suspension of the

prevailing scheme for compassionate appointments.

Ext.M4 is the circular regarding the scheme for payment of

ex-gratia relief in lieu of compassionate appointment.

Ext.M5 is the modified scheme of 2007 with provision for

appointment of dependents of employees who died while

in service under certain specified circumstances. The

details of terminal benefits of the four employees who

died while in service and mentioned in the Claim Statement

are marked as Ext.M6 to Ext.M9. Except in the case of one

of the dependents it is not disputed by the Respondent

that application for appointment on compassionate ground

has been received by the bank.

12.

Both sides have drawn attention to the precedents

regarding scheme for appointment on compassionate

grounds and the effect of the introduction of the scheme

for ex-gratia payment in lieu of appointment on

compassionate grounds. The petitioner has very much

relied upon the decision of the Apex Court of (AIR 2000

SC 1596) in BALBIR KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STEEL

AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS. In this, the

Apex Court had directed the Steel Authority of India Ltd.

to consider the claims for compassionate appointments.

On going through the above judgment it could be seen

that it will not give an answer to the contention raised by

the Respondent that since the scheme for ex-gratia

payment has been introduced that will prevail and that the

scheme that will be applicable is the one that is prevalent

on the date of consideration of the application and not the

date of the application itself. The above was the case where

the Steel Authority of India Ltd. had denied compassionate

appointment to the dependents on the ground that a

Family Benefit Scheme was introduced in the tripartite

settlement. The Apex Court has found that a clause in the

settlement preserved the scheme for appointment on

compassionate grounds and therefore the introduction of

the family benefit scheme was not a reason to deny

appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner

has also referred to the decision VIJAYA BANK Vs.

JAYAMMA AND ANOTHER reported in 2004 1 LLJ 706.

It was a case where Vijaya Bank had filed appeal against

the direction of the single bench of the Karnataka High

Court for appointment on compassionate ground. The

appeal was dismissed. Another decision relied upon by

the petitioner is the unreported decision of the Madras

High Court in SAROJA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK AND

OTHERS. In this the Hon’ble High Court has held that the

action of the Syndicate Bank in issuing circular unilaterally

changing the service conditions is illegal and had directed

the Bank to consider the application submitted by the

petitioner seeking compassionate appointment to his Son.

13.

When the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in

the decisions relied upon by the Respondent are taken

into account it could be seen that the above two decisions

of the Madras and the Karnataka High Court relied upon

by the petitioner will not be of any help. In the decision

UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Apex

Court has held that the employment on compassionate

ground was not a vested right which can be exercised at

any time. In the decision STATE BANK OF INDIA AND

ANOTHER Vs. RAJ KUMAR reported in (2010) 11 SCC

661, the Apex Court has held that compassionate

appointment is concession and not right and the employer

could wind up the scheme or modify at any time depending

upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.

It was further held that if the earlier scheme was abolished

and new scheme specifically provided any terms related

to pending applications, the new scheme would apply. In

the above case, before the application made by the

dependent was considered the scheme for compassionate

appointment was substituted by the State Bank of India

scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount. It

was in this circumstance the Apex Court has held that

the new scheme will be applicable and not the old scheme

which was prevalent when the application for

compassionate appointment was made. The Respondent

has also relied upon the decision BHAWANI PRASAD

SONKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported

in (2011) 4 SCC 209 wherein also it was held that

compassionate employment is given solely on

humanitarian grounds and could not be claimed as a matter

of right. The Madras High Court has held in PUNJAB

NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. LATA reported

in MANU/TN/7489/2007 that right to appoint on

compassionate ground was neither fundamental right nor

legal right but only an exception to the general rules. It

was further held that the law in operation as on the date of

consideration of the application would be applicable. It

was held that as per the terms and conditions of the new

scheme of the Punjab National Bank, the person must be

entitled only for ex-gratia amount and not for

compassionate appointment.

14.

No doubt, in the present case the applications filed

by the dependents for appointment on compassionate

ground were long pending. The Respondent, rather than

3848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

considering and taking a decision on those decisions had

suspended appointments on compassionate grounds

altogether and deferred consideration of the applications.

Subsequently, it has introduced a new scheme providing

for ex-gratia payment for dependents of employees who

died while in service superseding the scheme for

appointment on compassionate ground. When the dictum

laid down by the Apex Court is taken into account, the

concerned dependents were not entitled to appointment

on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. The very

term used is compassion and it was based on the

compassion of the employer, the dependents were getting

employment and not as a matter of right. The Apex Court

has held that the scheme that would be applicable will be

one that is prevailing at the time of consideration of the

application, if provision is made in the new scheme

regarding the previous claimants also. The scheme of 2004

providing for ex-gratia payment stipulates for making

payment under the scheme to the dependents of those

employees who died prior to the scheme also. The claim of

the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds

for the dependents of the employees named in the Claim

Petition is therefore not sustainable.

15.

In the case of Raj Kumar referred to earlier, the Apex

Court has held that where the earlier scheme is abolished

and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides

that all pending applications will be considered in terms of

the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply.

The scheme for compassionate appointment of 1999,

which was the one existing at the time when the concerned

dependents made the applications was replaced by the

scheme of 2004 providing for ex-gratia relief in lieu of

compassionate appointment. Ext.M4 is the copy of the

scheme of 2004. Clause-8.4.0 of the scheme provides

that pending applications under compassionate

appointment schemes as detailed in Circular No. 162/80

and Circular No. 31/99 are also eligible for ex-gratia

amount / relief under the scheme if they fulfill all the terms

and conditions of the scheme and opt for it. This scheme

of 2004 was replaced by scheme of 2007 which is marked

as Ext.M5. Clause-2.4(IV) of this scheme also provides for

consideration of applications under circulars 162/80 and

31/99. The clause states that pending applicants under

these circulars are also eligible for ex-gratia amount under

the scheme if they fulfill all the terms and conditions of the

scheme and opt for it. What is stated in the Counter

Statement of the Respondent is that consideration of the

applications of the concerned dependents were deferred

pending introduction of the new scheme. Even if the

Respondent is not bound to consider the claim of the

dependents for appointment on compassionate grounds

because of the replacement of the scheme for appointment

on compassionate grounds, the Respondent is bound to

grant relief on the basis of the new scheme. The scheme of

2004 as well as the scheme of 2007 provides for ex-gratia

relief, so the concerned dependents are entitled to be

considered for ex-gratia payment. The Respondent is bound

to pay them ex-gratia relief if they are eligible. On

considering the eligibility for ex-gratia relief as per the

norms prescribed under the existing scheme, the

Respondent is bound to calculate the ex-gratia amount

payable on the basis of the salary that the deceased

employees would have drawn as on the date of

consideration. This is necessary since the delay was

caused on account of the decision of the management to

defer consideration of the applications of the dependents.

Accordingly, an award is passed as follows:

(a)

The concerned dependents are found not eligible

for appointment in the Respondent Bank on

compassionate ground.

(b)

The Respondent shall get fresh applications from

the concerned dependents under the new scheme

for ex-gratia payment.

(c)

The Respondent shall process the applications

under the new scheme, if and when made and pay

lump sum ex-gratia amount in terms of the scheme to

the eligible beneficiaries, calculating it on the basis

of the salary the deceased employees would have

drawn as on the date of consideration of the

applications. The applications shall be disposed

within three months of their receipt.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 13th March, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

:

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

-

Bank’s circular no. 31/99 dated

11.02.1999

Ex.W2

-

Bank’s Circular No. 233/2004

dated 20.11.2004

Ex.W3

-

Bank’s Circular No. 169/2007

dated 17.10.2007

Ex.W4

-

Letter No. OR:1965:2000 dated

29.11.2000 of Dindigul Branch

Ex.W5

-

Death Certificate of Mr. G.

Thiagarajan

Ex.W6

-

Application for compassionate

appointment of T. Ganga, W/o

Late Sri G. Thiagarajan

Ex.W7

-

Application for compassionate

appointment of N. Santhi, W/o

Late Sri S. Janardhanan

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3849

Ex.W8

-

Letter dated 08.03.2001 of Mrs.

Rupa Joseph, W/o Late Sri PM

Joseph, to General Manager of the

Bank seeking compassionate

appointment

Ex.W9

-

Letter dated 24.07.2001 from

Vijaya Bank to Mrs. Rupa Joseph,

W/o Late Sri PM Joseph

Ex.W10

-

Covering letter dated 04.04.2003

of Madurai branch to Regional

Office enclosing compassionate

appointment application of Mr. L.

Durairaj

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

-

Codified Circular No. 29/1993 –

Scheme for appointment on

compassionate grounds

Ex.M2

-

Circular No. 31/99 – Amended

Scheme for appointment on

compassionate grounds

Ex.M3

-

Resolution passed by the Board

of Directors of the Bank resolving

for suspension of the prevailing

scheme for compassionate

appointments

Ex.M4

-

Circular No. 233/2004 – Scheme

for payment of ex-gratia relief in

lieu

of

compassionate

appointment

Ex.M5

-

Circular No. 169/2007 – Scheme

for Payment of Ex-gratia Amount

in lieu of appointment on

compassionate grounds and

appointment of dependents of

deceased

employees

on

compassionate grounds

Ex.M6

-

Statement showing details of

terminal benefits settled in favour

of the legal heirs of Sri G.

Thiagarajan

Ex.M7

-

Statement showing details of

terminal benefits settled in favour

of the legal heirs of Mr. PM Joseph

Ex.M8

-

Statement showing details of

terminal benefits settled in favour

of the legal heirs of Mr.

Janardhanan

Ex.M9

-

Statement showing details of

terminal benefits settled in favour

of the legal heirs of Mr. A.

Latchumanan.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1446-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e (1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eækl iÙku U;kl

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 74@2012) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@04@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&33012@1@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2012)

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

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

dispute between the management of Madras Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/04/2014.

[No. L-33012/1/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 11th March, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 74/2012

(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 Chennai Port Trust and their workman)

BETWEEN

Smt. M. Kasturi

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chairman

: 2nd Party/

Madras Port Trust

Respondent

Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s A. Meenakshi

Sundaram, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: Sri M.R. Dharanichander,

Respondent

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-33012/1/2011-IR (B-II)

dated 18.09.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Chennai

Port Trust, Chennai in dismissing Smt. M. Kasturi,

Ex-Peon from service w.e.f. 23.03.2006 is legal and

justified? What extent the workman is entitled to

relief?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 74/2012 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner was employed as Attender/Peon with

the Respondent. The Deputy Manager of Accounts, the

superior Officer of the petitioner had been harassing the

petitioner. The petitioner lost her mental balance on

account of this. She was suffering from Acute Osteo

Arthritis and other diseases. The petitioner had applied

for leave for her absence in the office. But these were not

considered. The Respondent conducted an enquiry

against the petitioner without giving opportunity to her

to participate in the enquiry and imposed the punishment

of dismissal from service by order dated 22.03.2006. Even

though the petitioner requested for re-enquiry, this was

not considered. The petitioner was constrained to go on

leave because of her illness. She was dismissed from

service after conducting an enquiry without following the

principles of natural justice. The punishment imposed on

the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge made

against her also. An order may be passed setting aside the

dismissal order and directing the Respondent to reinstate

the petitioner in service with back wages and other

attendant benefits.

4.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

All the allegations made in the Claim Statement are

denied by the Respondent. The petitioner ought to have

raised the dispute within three years from the date of

dismissal. The petitioner was dismissed from service

on 22.03.2006. She preferred appeal before the Appellate

Authority only on 27.12.2010. The dispute raised by the

petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.

The petitioner was appointed in the Finance Department

of the Respondent as Peon with effect from 01.02.1990.

She was promoted as Attender on 01.02.1998. She was

frequently absenting from duty from September 2002

onwards. She was continuously absent from duty from

23.03.2004 onwards. The petitioner was intimated at her

residential address five times in the form of letter and

telegram to report for duty. Since she failed to report for

duty even after this, a Show Cause Notice was issued to

her on 07.07.2004 and a reminder on 16.10.2004. Then a

Public Notice was given to her through the Newspaper

Dina Thanthi directing her to report for duty. She sent

letter stating that she could not attend office because of

the illness. A Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner at

his residential address. But this was returned undelivered

as it was not claimed by the petitioner. Three

communications were sent to her asking her to attend the

enquiry also. However, she did not attend the enquiry.

The enquiry was conducted ex-parte and the petitioner

was found guilty of the misconduct of habitual

unauthorized absence. The petitioner has preferred an

appeal against the dismissal order only after four years.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5.

The petitioner having challenged the fairness of the

enquiry, this was considered as a Preliminary Issue. On

considering the file pertaining to the enquiry, this Tribunal

has found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and

proper manner.

6.

The evidence in the case consists of Ext.W1 to

Ext.W17 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M37. No oral evidence was

adduced by either side.

7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management in dismissing

the petitioner from service is legal and justified?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any, to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The points

8.

The petitioner who was working as Attender in the

service of the Respondent has raised the dispute claiming

reinstatement in service after setting aside the order of

dismissal made against her. The Respondent had alleged

that the petitioner was un-authorizedly absent from duty

from continuously from 23.03.2004 till the date of the

dismissal from service. Even earlier she was frequently

absenting herself it has been stated. The Management is

said to have sent several communications to the petitioner

asking her to report for duty. When there was no response

a charge sheet has been issued against her, enquiry

conducted and based on the report of the enquiry the

petitioner was dismissed from service.

9.

Ext.M12 is the Charge Sheet that was issued to the

petitioner. In the annexure to the Charge Sheet it is stated

that the petitioner was continuously on unauthorized

absence from 23.03.2004 causing dislocation to the work,

that a Show Cause Memo was issued to her on 07.07.2004,

a reminder was also sent to her by post on 16.10.2004,

telegrams were also sent to her residential address and

notice was also published in the Tamil Daily Dina Thanthi

on 22.02.2005 asking her to report to duty immediately, but

in spite of this she has not reported for duty and that her

act is violation of regulation 4(7) of The Madras Port Trust

Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1987. Notice of enquiry

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3851

was also sent to the petitioner. She has not responded to

the Charge Memo or the notice of enquiry. Ext.M14 is the

report of the enquiry conducted in her absence. The

Accounts Officer of the concerned department was

examined and 8 documents were marked to substantiate

the case. The enquiry report reveals that notice was issued

to the petitioner asking her to attend enquiry on 12.04.2005.

Since she did not attend for enquiry on that date, another

notice was issued asking her to appear on 16.04.2005. Since

she failed to appear on the day also enquiry was conducted

ex-parte. On the basis of the documents produced and the

evidence of the witness, the Enquiry Officer has found

that the petitioner was un-authorizedly absent from duty

from 23.03.2004 till the date of enquiry. The enquiry report

refers to the leave applications that has been sent by the

petitioner to the Respondent but not sanctioned by the

competent authority.

10.

It could be seen from the documents produced that

the petitioner was unauthorizedly absenting herself from

duty and was going on sending leave applications though

they were not sanctioned. In Ext.M1 the leave application

dated 26.07.2004, the petitioner has stated that she is

having physical problem and could not work properly and

wants leave from 01.06.2004 to 30.06.2004. In answer to

this, Ext.M2 communication was sent to her by her superior

officer stating that she was unauthorizedly absent from

23.03.2004 and even though three telegrams were sent to

her, she has not reported for duty. Ext.M3 is an undated

letter by the petitioner asking for leave from 01.08.2004 to

30.09.2004 even though her previous leave application was

not sanctioned. Ext.M4 is still another undated application

asking for leave from 01.10.2004 to 30.10.2004. Ex.M5 is

another communication sent by the Respondent to the

petitioner on 16.10.2004 informing her that she was on

unauthorized absence from 23.03.2004, that in spite of

sending Show Cause Memo on 07.07.2004 she has not

reported for duty and this is causing dislocation to the

work of the Section. The letter had directed her to report

for duty immediately and to furnish explanation for her

absence. In spite of this, rather than reporting for duty the

petitioner sent another application asking for leave from

01.11.2004 to 31.12.2004. Ext.M8, another application was

sent by her requesting for leave from 01.01.2005 to

28.02.2005. This was followed by Ext.M10 another

application seeking leave from 01.03.2005 to 31.05.2005.

Though she has claimed that she was suffering from

physical problem, she has not produced any document to

show that she was actually suffering from any illness.

11.

Ext.M7 a medical certificate seems to have been

produced by the petitioner at the time she moved the

appellate authority seeking to set aside the order of

dismissal. This certificate states that the petitioner was

under treatment for one year from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2004.

Apart from the fact that the certificate looks comical for

the reason that it is exactly for the period from the 1st day

of 2004 to the last day of the 2004, it has been pointed out

by the counsel that even as per the certificate the petitioner

was fit to do any kind of work after 31.12.2004. In spite of

that she has not joined duty. She went on sending

applications for leave as seen from Ext.M8 and Ext.M10,

subsequently also. It could be seen from Ext.M11 that

since the petitioner failed to respond to the memos and

even the telegrams, a memo was issued to her by publication

in a daily newspaper also. It is clear from Ext.M15 that the

order of dismissal was sent to the petitioner. She has

refused to claim this as seen from the copy of the

acknowledgement alongwith the dismissal order.

Consequently, the dismissal order was published in a daily

newspaper as seen from Ext.M16. After that also, the

petitioner sent leave application as seen from Ext.M17.

Ext.M18 is the copy of the letter sent by the Respondent

to the petitioner stating that she is no longer an employee

of the Respondent, she having been dismissed from

service.

12.

It is clear even from the admission of the petitioner

that she was absenting herself from duty without any valid

reason. In Ext.M22, the letter sent by the petitioner to the

Respondent she has stated that she did a lot of mistake

and took a lot of leave. She has stated that she is sorry for

this conduct. Though this letter has come more than four

years after the dismissal order, this shows that she was

absenting herself from duty without any valid reason. It

was a case of unauthorized and willful absence.

13.

The petitioner had made an attempt to explain her

absence in the Claim Statement and also in her Proof

Affidavit. She has referred to misconduct by her superior

officer which was resisted by her resulting in harassment

by her officer which led to her absenting herself from work.

Referring to the relevant documents, it is pointed out by

the counsel for the Respondent that this is a case newly

introduced by the petitioner in the Claim Statement.

Ext.M19, the letter sent by the petitioner to the Chairman

of the Port Trust by way of appeal against the dismissal

order does not have such a case. In Ext.M19 her case is

that lenders pressurized her to repay amount and she lost

mental balance and was unable to attend duty. It is also

stated in the letter that one of the lenders had dragged her

to the Police Station and she had to go to the Police Station

to avoid legal problems and to arrive at a settlement.

Referring to this, it is pointed out by the counsel for the

Respondent that the petitioner was indulging in money

lending business and was also attending Police Station

etc. in connection with her case. It is pointed out by him

that the petitioner was healthy enough for all these and so

there was no question of her unable to attend work because

of the alleged illness. In Ext.M20, another letter sent by

the petitioner also, there is no case of misbehavior from

her superior officer. What is stated in Ext.M22, still another

communication sent to the Respondent on 12.08.2011 is

3852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that she was on friendly relationship with the higher

official, that he lent money to her and she gave it on

interest. This contradicts the case that she had come to be

at loggerheads with the higher official consequent to his

misbehavior. Ext.M23 shows that she was even running a

nursery school. It has been pointed out by the counsel for

the Respondent that the Port Trust has got its own hospital

and if the petitioner was suffering from any illness it was

up to her to get treated from the hospital or to get the

matter referred to some other hospital by the Port Trust

Hospital. The very conduct of the petitioner sufficiently

established that the petitioner without any valid reason,

unauthorizedly and willfully was absenting herself from

duty. She had failed to respond to innumerable

communications sent by the Respondent to her giving

opportunity to report for duty to avoid disciplinary action.

She had not thought it necessary even to attend the

enquiry proceedings. In the normal course, an employee,

if interested in continuing her employment, would at least

care to know about the result of the leave applications

submitted by them. The petitioner could not go on

expecting that she could continue to be absent for any

number of days from work at her whims and fancy without

inviting action. The Enquiry Officer has rightfully found

that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty.

14.

The petitioner was dismissed from service on

22.03.2006 on the basis of the enquiry report. It is very

much clear from the admission made by the petitioner

herself that she had received the order of dismissal.

Ext.M24 the undated letter sent by the petitioner to the

Respondent and received by the Respondent on 15.09.2012

would show that she had received the dismissal order

which has been communicated to her immediately after

the passing of the order itself. In spite of the receipt of the

dismissal order she had not thought it necessary to make

a move and take some action against the order. Still she

maintains silence. She continued her silence for long four

and a half years. It is after this, this dispute is raised.

Certainly, it is a matter referred by the Government and the

time limit prescribed under Section-2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act for filing an application directly before this

Court is not applicable to a referred matter. So, there is no

bar of any law for raising the dispute after a lapse of four

years. In spite of that, the conduct of the petitioner in

maintaining silence for all these years is a matter to be

taken into account. There is no case for the petitioner that

during these years also she was incapacitated on account

of any illness or any other reason for raising the dispute.

The conduct of the petitioner is as if she has accepted the

order of dismissal. Her waking from the long slumber after

a lapse of four years is something that could not

appreciated. What was she doing all these years, for the

two years from 23.03.2004 till her date of dismissal and the

four years after dismissal? The petitioner has not explained

this inaction.

15.

An argument has been advanced on behalf of the

petitioner that a major penalty like dismissal from service

is not contemplated under the Port Trust Employees

Conduct Regulations. This argument of the counsel seems

to be under a misconception. The Port Trust Employees

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations would

show that the Disciplinary Authority is well within its

power to impose such punishment. The argument that the

authority that imposed punishment has no power to do so

also has no basis. The schedule attached to the

Regulations would show that the Head of the Department

is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action

and impose penalty on Class-IV employees. The Financial

Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer who imposed

the punishment being the Head of the Department was

within his power to make the order of dismissal and impose

the punishment.

16.

Now the question to be considered is whether the

punishment imposed is in proportion to the gravity of the

offence. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

decision of the Apex Court in CHAIRMAN-CUM-

MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. MUKUL KUMAR

CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS reported in 2010 2 SCC 499,

where for unauthorized absence for six months and guilt

was admitted, reinstatement was ordered. However it was

a case where on charging with the misconduct the worker

had squarely admitted his guilt and had stated that he had

no desire to disobey the order of the authority. The counsel

for the petitioner has been trying to draw parallel with this

decision stating that the petitioner has admitted that she

was on unauthorized absence and so she is entitled to

better treatment by way of punishment. However, such

parallel cannot be drawn for the reason that in the present

case the petitioner was absent for two long years till the

date of dismissal, was keeping silent for another four and

a half years before she challenged the order and had been

trying to explain the absence with wrong reasons, even in

the Claim Statement.

17.

Referring to relevant precedents, the counsel for

the Respondent has pointed out that the punishment

imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity

of the misconduct committed by her. In the decision

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS VS.

SAKAPTAR SINGH reported in 2001 1 LLN 758, a case of

absence of 190 days, the Apex Court has found that

termination from service is the proper punishment. In the

decision L&T KOMITSU LTD. VS. UDAYA KUMAR

reported in 2008 1 SCC 224, a case where the employee

was absent for 105 days, the Apex Court has reversed the

order of reinstatement finding that termination from service

is the proper punishment. The counsel has also referred

to an unreported decision in CHENNAI METROPOLITAN

WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD AND OTHERS

VS. MURALI BABU dated 10.02.2004, a case where the

employee was dismissed for unauthorized absence

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3853

absence for 1 year and 7 months in which the Apex Court

has found that no interference was required in the order

of dismissal. The Court has observed that the employee

had exhibited adamant attitude in not responding to the

communications from the employer while he was

unauthorizedly absent. The Apex Court has further

observed that the plea of absence of habitual absenteeism

in the case is absolutely unacceptable. The Apex Court

has also criticized the High Court in entertaining the Writ

Petition challenging the dismissal order after a lapse of

four years.

18.

A person who is on employment is expected to be

regular in his duty and work for the employer with devotion

and sincerity. A person who has not cared to find out what

happened to her job for almost six years is not entitled to

any compassion. If such a compassion, if shown, will only

be a misguided one. I am not inclined to interfere with the

punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 11th March, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: None

For the 2nd Party/Management

: None

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

13.01.1990

Call letter

Ex.W2

-

Identity Card issued by CPT

Ex.W3

-

Salary slip’

Ex.W4

-

Representation with 4A medical

certificate

W4A

Ex.W5

-

Acknowledgement Cards series

Ex.W6

22.03.2006

Order of dismissal

Ex.W7

30.06.2006

Order on leave application

Ex.W8

27.10.2010

Appeal Petition

Ex.W9

27.12.2010

Dispute raised before AC (Labour)

Ex.W10

18.04.2011

Reply Counter by CPT before AC

(Labour)

Ex.W11

16.06.2011

Enquiry letter in Appeal

Ex.W12

26.07.2011

Order in Appeal

Ex.W13

20.10.2011

Failure report

Ex.W14

26.10.2012

Letter addressed to RLC (Central)

with returned cover

Ex.W15

-

Representation

Ex.W16

19.11.2012

Reply by CPT

Ex.W17

-

Reference

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

26.07.2004

Leave application

Ex.M2

07.07.2004

Respondent memo issued to

petitioner

Ex.M3

-

Leave application

Ex.M4

-

Leave application

Ex.M5

16.10.2004

Respondent memo issued to

petitioner

Ex.M6

-

Leave application

Ex.M7

05.01.2005

Petitioner medical certificate

Ex.M8

-

Leave application

Ex.M9

22.02.2005

Paper publication issued by the

Respondent

Ex.M10

-

Leave application

Ex.M11

17.02.2005

Respondent memo issued to the

petitioner along with paper

publication

Ex.M12

22.03.2005

Respondent charge sheet issued

to the petitioner along with

annexure

Ex.M13

16.04.2005

Enquiry notice sent to the

petitioner by the Respondent

Ex.M14

15.12.2005

Enquiry report

Ex.M15

22.03.2006

Dismissal order sent to the

petitioner

along

with

acknowledgement card

Ex.M16

22.03.2006

Respondent dismissal order

publication to newspaper

Ex.M17

08.06.2006

Leave application

Ex.M18

30.06.2006

Respondent memo sent to the

petitioner

Ex.M19

27.10.2010

Petitioner letter sent to the

Respondent Port Trust

Ex.M20

27.12.2010

Petitioner letter sent to the ACL

(Central)

Ex.M21

18.04.2011

Respondent reply sent to the ACL

(C)

Ex.M22

12.05.2011

Petitioner letter sent to the

Respondent

Ex.M23

11.04.2011

Chandra

letter

given

to

Respondent

Ex.M24

15.09.2012

Petitioner

letter

sent

to

Respondent

3854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M25

19.10.2004

Postal receipt of memo issued by

the Respondent to the petitioner

Ex.M26

23.03.2005

Acknowledgement card of paper

publication copy sent to

petitioner by Respondent

Ex.M27

22.03.2005

Postal return cover of charge

sheet sent by the Respondent to

the petitioner

Ex.M28

05.07.2004

Respondent take disciplinary

action against petitioner

Ex.M29

27.01.2005

CAO permission letter for paper

publication

Ex.M30

22.03.2006

Dismissal order of the petitioner

sent by the Respondent along

with postal receipt and return

cover

Ex.M31

16.06.2011

Respondent letter sent to

petitioner

Ex.M32

26.07.2011

Dismissal order of appeal sent by

the Respondent to petitioner

along with acknowledgement card

Ex.M33

-

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M34

Feb. 2006

Respondent approval to publish

the dismissal order in Daily

Thanthi

Ex.M35

24.03.2006

Publication of dismissal in News

Paper Daily Thanthi

Ex.M36

16.10.2012

Respondent letter send to

Petitioner returned cover

Ex.M37

19.11.2012

Respondent letter sent to

Petitioner.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1447-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj psUubZ iÙku

U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 57@2011) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@04@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&33012@1@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O.

1447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Chennai Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/04/2014.

[No. L-33012/1/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 11th April, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57/2011

(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 Chennai Port Trust and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Sri S. Dhanamoorthy

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Mechanical Engineer : 2nd Party/Respondent

Chennai Port Trust

Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s. Balan Haridas

Sri R. Kamatchi

Sundaresan, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

: Sri M.R.Dharanichander.,

Respondent

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-33012/1/2010-IR (B-II)

dated 31.05.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of Chennai

Port Trust, Chennai in imposing the punishment of

removal from service upon Sri S. Dhanamoorthy, an-

EOT Crane Driver Gr.II w.e.f. 27.01.2004 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID No. 57/2011 and issued notices to

both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

counsel and filed their claim and counter statement

respectively.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent

as Assistant Technician in the year 1989. He was promoted

as Crane Driver, Grade-II in 1991. The service of the

petitioner has been without any blemish. On 16.01.2004,

while the wife of the petitioner was travelling in a bus she

met with an accident and suffered multiple fractures.

Initially she was admitted in the Government Hospital,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3855

Chennai. Then she had to be shifted to a private hospital

for treatment. In order to give treatment to his wife and to

take care of his children the petitioner had to avail leave

from 27.01.2004. The petitioner had informed this to the

Respondent. While taking care of his wife the petitioner

developed heart ailment. The petitioner had sent fax

message to the Respondent and explained the reasons for

his absence. After the accident of his wife, the petitioner

had shifted his residence to Ambal Nagar, Mangadu from

his previous residence at Pandara Street, Kundrathur. A

Charge Memo was sent to the petitioner alleging that he

was absent from work without prior permission from

27.01.2004 to 19.02.2004 and this amounts to misconduct.

Though the Charge Memo was sent to the erstwhile

address of the petitioner, he received it through a well-

wisher. The petitioner had sent his explanation to the

Charge Memo on 16.03.2004. He has given his present

address also in the same. The petitioner had informed that

his absence is not without intimation and that it was for

sufficient reason. After this, the petitioner did not hear

anything from the Respondent. On 24.10.2004 he sent a

letter requesting to permit him to join duty on 03.11.2004.

Though the petitioner went to work, he was not permitted

to enter the premises. The petitioner was orally informed

that he can rejoin duty only on getting appropriate orders.

After this the petitioner was waiting for the orders allowing

him to rejoin duty. He had approached the Respondent

orally renewing his request to rejoin duty. When the

petitioner approached the Respondent again he was orally

informed that he has been removed from service of the

Respondent and that he will be receiving appropriate

orders. However, he did not receive any such order. By

letter dated 24.03.2008, he requested the Respondent to

furnish copies of the documents on the basis of which he

has been denied employment. He did not get any reply.

The petitioner then sent application invoking the Right to

Information Act and he was furnished with copies of the

Charge Memo, the order appointing Enquiry Officer,

Enquiry report, Order removing him from service, etc.

Notice of the purported enquiry was not sent to the

petitioner. The Respondent seems to have issued notice

to the petitioner to his erstwhile address with the full

knowledge that he is not residing there. An ex-parte enquiry

appears to have been conducted against the petitioner.

From the order of removal furnished to the petitioner, he

understands that publication has been made in the daily

“Dina Thanthi” informing that the service of the petitioner

is proposed to be removed w.e.f. 27.01.2004. The petitioner

is not a deserter. The petitioner had availed leave for

reasonable cause. The enquiry conducted was unfair and

in violation of principles of natural justice. An order may

be passed setting aside the order of removal of the

petitioner from service and directing the Respondent to

reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of

service and other attendant benefits.

3.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The petitioner was in the service of the Respondent

temporarily from 08.05.1989 and was confirmed in service

as Assistant Technician on 29.08.1989. He was later

promoted as Crane Driver, Grade-II. The Crane Operators

are very critical for the work of the Respondent. Shortage

of even one Crane Operator will affect the daily operations

of the Respondent to a large extent. It is incorrect to state

that the career of the petitioner was without any blemish.

He was placed under suspension on two different

occasions on grave charges and was inducted later. The

petitioner was absent from work without prior permission

from 27.01.2004 causing dislocation to the day-to-day work

of the Port. The Respondent sent letter to the petitioner

on 19.02.2004 asking him to report for work immediately.

Since he did not turn up for work in spite of the letter a

Charge Memo was issued to him on 16.03.2004 for not

reporting for work from 27.01.2004. In the meantime the

petitioner sent a letter by fax on the same day stating that

his wife met with an accident and requested for leave.

Since there was no explanation from the petitioner and

since he had not produced any supportive documents,

the Respondent sent another letter to him to submit his

explanation. This was returned with an endorsement that

the addressee has left. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was

appointed to enquire on the absence of the petitioner.

Though, two letters were sent by the Enquiry Officer to

the Petitioner asking him to appear for the enquiry, these

were returned with the postal endorsement that they are

not claimed. The Enquiry Officer conducted the

proceedings after setting the petitioner ex-parte. He gave

a report finding that the charge against the petitioner is

proved. The letter sent to the petitioner asking him to

Show-Cause why he should not be removed from

service also was returned as unclaimed. Subsequent letters

sent to the petitioner also were returned. The Respondent

then gave advertisement in a newspaper on 20.02.2005.

Still there was no response from the petitioner.

Consequently, by order dated 09.06.2005 the petitioner

was removed from service w.e.f. 27.01.2004. The letter sent

to the petitioner to this effect was returned un-served.

After this, for the first time the petitioner approached the

Respondent on 24.03.2008 with an application under the

Right to Information Act seeking the details of enquiry

conducted against him. The dispute is raised after this. It

was the duty of the petitioner to furnish his new address

to the Respondent if he has shifted residence. All the

communications were sent to the petitioner in the available

address. The petitioner has already attained the age of

superannuation. So there is no question of reinstatement

of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

4.

In view of the contention that the departmental

enquiry against the petitioner has not been conducted in

fair and proper manner, this issue was heard as a Preliminary

3856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue and this Tribunal has entered a finding against the

Respondent. In view of this, the Respondent has given

evidence before this Court to prove the case. MW1 has

been examined and Exts.M1 to Ext.M33 were marked on

the side of the Respondent. The petitioner has got himself

examined as WW1 and marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W10.

5.

The points that arise for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in imposing

the punishment of removal from service on the

petitioner is legal and justified?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

6.

MW1 examined on behalf of the Respondent has

stated in her affidavit about the circumstances under

which proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner

for his alleged unauthorized absence. She has stated that

several communications were sent to the petitioner but all

these met without any response except for his fax letter

dated 16.03.2004 stating that his wife had met with an

accident . From the admission made by MW1 during his

cross-examination, it could be seen that she has no personal

knowledge regarding the case. She was giving evidence

based on records only. In the affidavit filed by him, the

petitioner has repeated his case in the Claim Statement.

He has stated that his wife has met with an accident, that

she was undergoing treatment, that it was accordingly he

had to avail leave from 27.01.2004 and that he himself had

developed heart ailment subsequently.

7.

It could be seen from the Claim Statement, evidence

and the documents produced on the side of the petitioner

that the petitioner was absent from duty from 27.01.2004.

It is also seen from the evidence that several of the

communications that were sent to the petitioner in his

address available with the Respondent were returned

stating that the addressee has left. Ext.M1 seems to be the

first communication sent to the petitioner on account of

his absence which is described as one without prior

permission. This document is seen dated 19.02.2004.

Ext.M2 is the memo that has been issued to the petitioner

in the absence of any reply to Ext.M1 stating that he was

absent without prior permission from 27.01.2004 to

19.02.2004, the date on which Ext.M1 was issued, that this

has caused dislocation to the normal work of the Port and

his action of absenting himself amounts to misconduct.

He was directed to show-cause within 3 days of the receipt

of the memo as to why disciplinary action should not be

taken after him. Both these communications are seen sent

to him at Pandara Street. On 16.03.2004 itself the

Respondent seems to have received an explanation from

the petitioner, probably in reply to Ext.M1. Though the

letter itself is not available, Ext.M32 gives indication of

the letter. This refers to the letter sent by the petitioner on

16.03.2004 stating that his wife had met with an accident

on 16.01.2004 and she is admitted in the hospital. By the

same letter he has requested for leave till 25.03.2004. There

is a recommendation for permitting him to avail leave. It

could be seen that since the petitioner has failed to join

duty on 25.03.2004, further proceedings has been initiated

against him. Ext.M4 letter was again sent to the petitioner

asking him to furnish explanation for his absence. As

already stated, all the communications sent to the

petitioner were returned un-served. Though it is admitted

by the Respondent that a fax has been sent by the

petitioner, the fax itself is not available. According to the

Respondent, the fax communication is not available at the

Office. In any case, the fact remains that the petitioner has

not rejoined duty on 25.03.2004 though he has asked for

leave till that date only.

8.

It could be seen from Ext.W4, the Charge Memo

issued to the petitioner that disciplinary action has been

taken not for the absence from 27.01.2004 to 19.02.2004

only but for absence from 27.01.2004 to the date on which

the action has been initated. The counsel for the petitioner

has been arguing that proceedings has been initiated

against him for the absence for the period from 27.01.2004

to 19.02.2004 only. However, this is not the case. It was

when the petitioner continued to be absent even after the

date on which he has agreed to rejoin duty, proceedings

has been initiated against him. It is a fact beyond dispute

that the petitioner was all along absent from work after

27.01.2004. Even after the Enquiry Officer has furnished

report stating that the petitioner is unauthorizedly absent,

the Respondent has not taken a decision to remove the

petitioner from service. On the other hand, by Ext.M9, the

communication that was sent to the petitioner on

22.12.2004, after enquiry report was submitted by the

Enquiry Officer, he was asked to join duty on or before

31.12.2004 with valid explanation for his absence. However,

there was no response to this also. It was consequently

the Respondentmade publication in the Dina Thanthi

newspaper. Only on 09.06.2005, the order removing the

petitioner from service was sent to the petitioner. Thus, it

could be seen that opportunity was available for the

petitioner to report for duty at any time before his removal

from service. Of course, the petitioner has stated in the

Claim Statement as well as in his Affidavit that he has

approached the Respondent and offered to rejoin duty

but he was not allowed. All these are only self-serving

statements unsupported by any documents.

9.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the

absence of the petitioner from work was for sufficient

reason and therefore he was not liable to be terminated

from service. The counsel has referred to the decision

CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, COAL

INDIA LTD. VS. MUKUL KUMAR CHOUDHURY AND

OTHERS reported in CDJ 2009 SC 1698 in this respect. It

was a case where the workman had remained absent for 6

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3857

months without any authorization. The Apex Court has

found that the punishment was not in proportion to the

misconduct of the workman. The Apex Court had directed

reinstatement of the workman. The counsel has also

referred to the decision KRUSHNAKANT PARMAR VS.

UNION OF INDIA reported in 2012, 3 SCC 198. Here the

Apex Court has held that if the absence is the result of

compelling circumstances under which it was not possible

to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to

be willful. Absence from duty without any application or

prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence but

it does not always mean willful, it was further held. It was

also held that it is for the Disciplinary Authority to prove

that the absence is willful.

10.

Of course, the petitioner has got a case that it was

because of the accident met by his wife, he had started to

absent himself from duty. Admittedly, he was absent from

27.01.2004. The accident of his wife was on 16.01.2004. It

is pointed out by the Counsel for the Respondent that in

spite of accident of his wife on 16.01.2004, the petitioner

had been absenting from 27.01.2004 only. In any case,

there is the communication given by the petitioner seeking

leave till 25.03.2004. So in any case his absence until

25.03.2004 could not be said to be without any explanation,

unauthorized or willful. However, there is no acceptable

explanation for his subsequent absence. He has stated in

the Claim Statement that apart from his wife’s ailment he

has developed heart ailment and this was the reason for

his absence subsequently also. In spite of such a

contention, the petitioner has not produced any document

before this Tribunal to support his case, even though

opportunity was available to him because of the finding

that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper

manner. So this version that he was suffering from illness

which made it impossible for him to attend his work could

not be believed at all. He has stated that though the

Respondent was aware of change in his address,

communication was being sent in his erstwhile address

and for this reason he did not get any communication

regarding the enquiry. During his evidence the petitioner

has admitted that he did not furnish his new address to

the Respondent, so it was only natural that communication

was sent to him in the available address. He seems to have

been at his earlier address itself before he sent the letter

dated 16.03.2004. Otherwise he would not have received

the memo dated 19.02.2004. If a well wisher was there for

him to forward the communication to him to his new

address, one fails to understand why this well wisher has

not forwarded the subsequent communications also.

11.

It is the subsequent conduct of the petitioner which

more than anything disentitles him for any relief. The

petitioner has started to be absent from 27.01.2004. Then

after four years, he approached the Respondent through

an application under Right to Information Act claiming

copies of the documents in respect of the proceedings

taken against him. Where was the petitioner all these

years? Assuming that the petitioner was unaware of all

the communications sent to him and the proceedings taken

against him, is it that he expected his job to remain intact

in spite of his absence for years together? What the

petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement is that he had

approached the Respondent on one or two occasions

seeking permission to rejoin duty but he was turned out.

If he was actually making any such enquiry, it is unlikely

that he would not have been aware of the proceedings

initiated against him. In spite of this, the petitioner had

not thought it necessary to raise the dispute earlier. Where

was he all these years? What was he doing? There is no

case for the petitioner that himself and his wife continued

to be ill all along. On the other hand, his case in the Claim

Statement is that he was willing to rejoin duty on 03.11.2004.

If that is the case, the reasons which dissuaded him from

attending duty prior to that were not there in which case

he would have been able to enquire and find out what

happened to his job and challenge the same. When these

aspects are taken into account, it could be seen that it was

the case of the petitioner abandoning his work. The

counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision

STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JAGIR SINGH reported in 2004, 4

LLN 739 in this respect. It was a case where the workman

was terminated in 1979 and he sought reinstatement in

1981. The Apex Court had observed that it does not stand

to reason why the workman kept mum till the reference

was made. In the recent decision in SLP 15530 of 2013

CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND

SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS VS. MURALI BABU,

the case of the workman who was absent for a considerably

long period was considered, the Supreme Court has

observed that the workman was possibly nurturing the

idea that he can remain absent for any length of time,

apply for grant of leave at any time and also knock at the

doors of a Court at his own will. It was further observed

that such a conduct is not permissible. In the present case

also, the petitioner has been absenting himself for

years together without any thought for his job, without

making any enquiry what happened to the permanent job

he was having. Such conduct on the part of the workman

is not to be encouraged in any manner.

12.

Apart from the above is the aspect that the past

conduct of the petitioner as a workman is not without

blemish as claimed by him. The Respondent has produced

documents pertaining to the previous proceedings that

has been initiated against the petitioner for his misconduct

and these are marked as Ext.M26 to Ext.M36. This fact

also speaks against the petitioner. An establishment is

not expected to wait for a workman who has been

misconducting himself and has been absenting himself

from duty for years together. I am not inclined to grant any

relief to the petitioner.

The reference is answered against the petitioner.

3858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

the 11th day of April 2014.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Sri S. Dhanamoorthy

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri P. Radha

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

16.03.2004

Charge Memo

Ex.W2

23.03.2004

Letter written by the petitioner to

the Respondent

Ex.W3

24.10.2004

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex.W4

21.08.2004

Order of the Respondent ordering

for enquiry

Ex.W5

-

Enquiry Report

Ex.W6

18.10.2004

The 2nd Show Cause Notice

Ex.W7

22.12.2004

Further show cause notice issued

by the respondent

Ex.W8

09.06.2005

Order of removal

Ex.W9

27.03.2008

The application of the Petitioner

Ex.W10 03.05.2008

Letter of the Rspondent

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

19.02.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner

Ex.M2

16.03.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner

Ex.M3

14.06.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner

Ex.M4

08.07.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner with

Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.M5

21.08.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner

Ex.M6

18.10.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner

Ex.M7

03.11.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner with

Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.M8

10.11.2004

C.M.E. Report

Ex.M9

22.12.2004

Memo issued to Petitioner with

Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.M10 25.02.2005

Paper Publication

Ex.M11 09.06.2005

Memo issued to Petitioner with

Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.M12 09.03.2004 to

Various Notes paper filed by the

07.06.2004

Respondent

Ex.M13 27.03.2008

Petitioner letter send to Public

Information Officer, Ch.PT

Ex.M14 03.05.2008

Memo issued to Petitioner

Ex.M15 22.10.2008

Asst. Labour Commissioner letter

issued to Chairman

Ex.M16 15.05.2008

2A petitioner filed by the

petitioner

Ex.M17 03.01.2009

Chennai Port Trust explanation

given

Ex.M18 23.03.2009

Respondent letter send to

Ministry

Ex.M19 30.11.2010

Chennai Port Trust letter issued

to Ministry

Ex.M20 31.05.2011

Ministry Order

Ex.M21 23.06.2011

CGIT Notice issued to Petitioner

and Respondent

Ex.M22 -

Petitioner BIO Data

Ex.M23 -

Salary Register

Ex.M24 -

Leave Details

Ex.M25 28.11.2013

Authorization letter issued by

Chennai Port Trust

Ex.M26 19.01.1999

Charge sheet issued by the

Respondent

Ex.M27 27.01.1999

Reply letter given by the

petitioner to the Management

Ex.M28 06.02.1999

Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex.M29 11.02.1999

Reply letter given by the

petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M30 14.07.1999

Enquiry notice issued by the

Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.M31 08.04.2002

Enquiry Report

Ex.M32 -

Attendance Sheet

Ex.M33 23.04.2002

Final Show cause notice issued

by the Respondent to the

Petitioner

Ex.M34 27.05.2002

Reply letter given by the

petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M35 02.07.2002

Memo issued by the Respondent

to the Petitioner

Ex.M36 31.01.2003

Memo issued by the Respondent

to the Petitioner

ubZ fnYYkh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk 1448-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk Hkkjrh;

bLikr izkf/dj.k fyfeVsM fjÚsDVjh dh bdkbZ;ka] fHkykbZ] NÙkhlx<+]

vkbZ,iQvkbZlhvks] ekjj] >kj[akM ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/

ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3859

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds

v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds

fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus

dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj

gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh

fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/ dgk x;k

gS)izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh

/kjk 45 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k

dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr

vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa

dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/

ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk

jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj

cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml

vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa

vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha miacèkksa

dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr

dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk

djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj

etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk]

cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd

;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj

mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa

ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_ ;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrZk ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh

O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]

;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS

fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]

cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj

djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrw leqfpr

ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@11@2013&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1448.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of SAIL Refractories

Units at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, IFICO, Marar, Jharkhand and

Ranchi Road, Marar, Jharkhand from the operation of the

said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the date of

issue of notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees’;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

3860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which exemption

is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ;

or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

register, account book or other

document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption,

[No. S-38014/11/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 2 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk 1449-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ jk"Vªh;

jklk;u vkSj moZjd fyfeVsM] eqEcbZ ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds

fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku

djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d

o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds

v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds

fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus

dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj

gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh

fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/ dgk x;k

gS)izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh

/kjk 45 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3861

dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr

vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa

dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/

ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk

jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj

cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml

vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa

vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha miacèkksa

dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr

dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vfèkfu;e

ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu] fdlh

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk

djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj

etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk]

cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujhf{kd

;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj

mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa

ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_ ;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh

O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]

;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS

fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]

cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj

djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr

ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@2@2013&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014

S.O. 1449.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of M/s Rashtriya

Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd., Mumbai from the operation of

the said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the

date of issue of Notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees’;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act, to which they might have become

entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid

prior to the date from which exemption granted

by this notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which exemption

is being granted under this notification; or

3862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to furnish to him such

information as he may consider necessary

for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ;

or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

register, account book or other

document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/2/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk 1450-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, paMhx<+ vkn~;ksfxd

vkSj i;kZVu fodkl fuxe fyfeVsM ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds

fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku

djrh gSA ;g NwV] fnukad 10&05&2014 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds

fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds

v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds

fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus

dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj

gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh

fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k

gS)izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh

/kjk 45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k

dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr

vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa

dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/

ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk

jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj

cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml

vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa

vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha miacèkksa

dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ugha] fuEufyf[kr

dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk

djuk fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls

mijksDr vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl

vfèkfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3863

([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds

vfèkHkksxkèkhu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh

mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds

izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa

ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/

r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost]

,sls fujhf{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k

izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh

O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkusa] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]

;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS

fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]

cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj

djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrw leqfpr

ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@18@2012&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1450.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of Chandigarh

Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. from

the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be

effective from 10-05-2014 for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees’;

(2)

Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which exemption

is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to furnish to him such

information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

3864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ;

or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

register, account book or other

document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/18/2012-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1451-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 85 dk 2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@186@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2005)

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 M/s TISCO,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/186/2004-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 85 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of M/S TISCO

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: Shri R.R.Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

Dated. 27/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/186/2004-IR (C-I), dated.24/

11/2005, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Bahujan Mazdoor Union

from the management of Tisco to grant employment

to one of the dependents of Late Sh. Santa Singh,

Senior overman, Tisco on compassionate ground is

justified ? If so, to what relief is/are the said

dependents(s) entitled. ?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

28.11.2005. After notice both parties appeared , the

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

07.12.2005. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 06.07.2006. Only one witness

is examined on behalf of the workman.

3.

The short point involved in this case, that this is a

case of dependent employment . Admittedly the workman

died while he was in job. Management disputed that the

workman has not died during the course of his employment.

Though the applicant has specifically pleaded that the

workman died while on duty. That has not been specifically

denied by the management.

4.

Moreover the applicant has stated that his name

was recorded in medical register as dependent of the

deceased workman and that fact has not been specifically

denied by the management. This being the position, there

is no impediment to give the dependant employment.

6.

Considering the fact and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the demand of Bahujan Mazdoor Union from

the management of Tisco to grant employment to one of

the dependent of late Shri Santa Singh, senior overman

Tisco on compassionate ground is justified, Hence it is

ordered to give employment to one of the dependent who

will be found suitable after proper verification as per

norms.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3865

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1452-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lgkjk

,vjykbZul fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 49 dk 2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@17@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of M/s. Sahara Airlines

Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-11012/17/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 12th February, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 49/2009

(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 Jet Airways, Sahara India Commercial

Corporation Ltd. And Sahara Airlines Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri P. Suresh

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1.

M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.

: 2nd Party/

L-70/329, Mahipalpur extension

1st Respondent

New Delhi-110037

2.

M/s. Sahara India :

: 2nd Party/

Commercial Corpn.

2nd Respondent

Sahara India Centre, 8th floor

No. 2, Kapoorthala Complex,

Aliganj, Lucknow-226024

3.

M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.

: 2nd Party/3rd

SM Centre, Andheri-Kurla Road-

Respondent

Andheri East, Mumbai-400059

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: M/s. M. Muthupandian,

Petitioner

G. Mutharasu, G. Alexander,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocates

1st Respondent

For the 2nd Party/

: Sri V. Devraj,

2nd Respondent

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocates

3rd Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/17/2009-IR (CM-

I) dated 19.06.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demand of Sri P. Suresh for his

absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet

Airways with reference to the Share Purchase

Agreement dated 01.04.2007 entered by the

Management of Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Sahara India

Commercial Corporation Ltd. and others and Sahara

Airlines Ltd. is justified and legal? (ii) to what relief

is the workman concerned entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 49/2009 and issued notice to both

sides. The petitioner, the Second Respondent and the third

respondent have entered appearance and filed Claim

Statement and Counter Statements respectively. The First

respondent, though represented by Counsel did not file

any Counter Statement.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner was appointed by the First

Respondent as loader on 26.01.1994. On 18.01.2006 there

was a tripartite agreement between the three respondents.

By this agreement, pilots, co-pilots, engineers, technicians

and key managers of the First Respondent were allowed

to continue under the employment of Third Respondent

to whom the First Respondent establishment was

transferred. On 20.04.2007 the First Respondent purported

to transfer the petitioner to the Second Respondent

and the Second Respondent in turn put the petitioner on

deputation with the Third Respondent. On 01.06.2007, the

Second Respondent transferred the petitioner to

Srikakulam. The petitioner had objected the transfer on

the ground that he was appointed by the First Respondent

and that his lien continued with the First Respondent.

3866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The petitioner had joined at Srikakulam but he had to come

back because of problem with the language and food. The

petitioner had raised the dispute claiming absorption with

the Third Respondent. The First Respondent had in fact

merged with the Third Respondent by the Share Purchase

Agreement dated 18.01.2006 as amended on 01.04.2007.

The petitioner is entitled to be absorbed with the Third

Respondent as its employee. The petitioner should be

treated as a continued employee as per the Share Purchase

Agreement. If the Third Respondent is not bound to absorb

the petitioner, the service of the petitioner with the First

Respondent stands terminated and such termination would

amount to retrenchment for which permission under

Section-25(N) of Industrial Disputes Act is necessary. The

petitioner would be entitled to three months salary in lieu

of notice and retrenchment compensation under Section-

25(N) of the ID Act. The petitioner had never been

employed with the Second Respondent. He had not

consented to be employed by the Second Respondent.

The transfer of the petitioner by the Second Respondent

to Srikakulam is the result of victimization. The petitioner

is entitled to be absorbed by the Third Respondent as its

employee. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of a

“continued employee as per the Share Purchase

Agreement”. In case the petitioner is found not entitled

to absorption with the Third Respondent his case is to be

treated as termination of service by the First Respondent

amounting to retrenchment and he is entitled to the

compensation payable on retrenchment. An order may be

passed accordingly.

4.

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The reference is not maintainable as the Central

Government is not the appropriate government as far as

the Second Respondent is concerned This tribunal has

no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The

petitioner is not claiming any relief from the Second

Respondent. So proceedings against the Second

Respondent is to be dropped. The dispute is not

maintainable also for the reason that it is covered by

Section-25(FF) of the ID Act. The service of the petitioner

was never terminated by the Second Respondent. So the

dispute is not maintainable under Section-2(A) of the ID

Act. At the time of transfer of ownership and

management of the First Respondent to the Third

Respondent service of the petitioner was transferred to

Second Respondent on the same terms. This transfer was

duly accepted by the petitioner. On request by the Third

Respondent the second Respondent had deputed some

employees including the petitioner to the Third

Respondent The petitioner has accepted this work on

deputation and has served with the Third Respondent on

deputation for a period of 90 days. After expiry of this

period the petitioner has reported back to the Second

Respondent for duty. The Second Respondent had paid

Rs. 40,000 to the petitioner as ex-gratia compensation/

management incentive. This amount is accepted by the

petitioner. The petitioner who was transferred to Srikakulam

had accepted the transfer and had joined for duty at the

place of transfer. He had worked there from 06.07.2007 to

15.07.2007. There was no termination of the service of the

petitioner by the Second Respondent. The petitioner had

left the place of transfer on his own accord. Since the

petitioner was neither retrenched, dismissed or discharged

from service the dispute raised under Section-2(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. It is incorrect

to state that the First Respondent merged with Third

Respondent. The ownership of First Respondent was

taken over by the Third Respondent by acquiring all the

shares of the First Respondent. The relationship of

employer and employee between the petitioner and the

Second Respondent has come into existence at the time

the petitioner accepted the order of transfer and joined for

duty at the place of transfer. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief against the Second Respondent.

5.

The Third Respondent has filed counter statement

contending as follows :

A dispute under Section-2(A) under ID Act can be

raised only in case of termination of the service of an

employee by way of dismissal, retrenchment or discharge.

The issue of absorption of an employee by an employer

could not be the subject matter of dispute under Section-

2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the case of the

petitioner is not espoused by any Trade Union it is not

maintainable under Section-2(K) of the Industrial Disputes

Act also. The Third Respondent has entered into a Share

Purchase Agreement dated 18.01.2006 as amended on

01.04.2007 with the Second Respondent and the First

Respondent. As per the terms of the Share Purchase

Agreement the erstwhile employees of the First

Respondent are either continued employees or transferred

employees. The petitioner comes under the category of

transferred employees. He is not entitled to seek any relief

against the Third Respondent. As per the Share

Purchase Agreement the obligation of the Third

Respondent was to provide employment only to employees

who fall under the category of continued employees. In

view of the provisions of Section-25FF of the ID Act the

dispute is not maintainable against the Third Respondent.

The service of the petitioner was continued with the

Second Respondent. He was not terminated from service

at any point of time. The petitioner had accepted the order

of transfer of Second Respondent and had joined duty at

Srikakulam. The allegation that the First Respondent got

merged with the Third Respondent under the Share

Purchase Agreement is not correct. The First Respondent

continues to remain as a separate legal entity. The

petitioner has no right to be treated as continued employee

under the Share Purchase agreement. Since the provisions

of Section-25(FF) are attracted the petitioner cannot claim

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3867

any relief against the First Respondent or the Third

Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

6.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ex.W4 and M1 and M2.

7.

The points that arise for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the petitioner is entitled to absorption with

the Third Respondent on the basis of the Share

Purchase Agreement dated 01.04.2007?

(ii)

In the alternative, whether the service of the

petitioner with the First Respondent is to be deemed

to have been terminated? Whether the petitioner is

entitled to retrenchment compensation?

Point No. 1

8.

The petitioner was working as loader with Sahara

Airlines Ltd from 26.01.1994. The ownership in respect of

the First Respondent was transferred to the Third

Respondent by Share Purchase Agreement dated

18.01.2006 as amended on 01.04.2007. Ext.M1 is the Share

Purchase Agreement dated 18.01.2006 and Ext.M2 is the

Share Purchase Agreement dated 01.04.2007. The case of

the petitioner is that in fact it is not a transfer but that by

the two Share Purchase Agreements, the First Respondent

had merged with the Third Respondent. It is claimed by

the petitioner that he is entitled to be absorbed with the

Third Respondent as an employee of the Third

Respondent, consequent to the Share Purchase

Agreement. According to the petitioner, while some of the

employees of the First Respondent were retained even

after the Share Purchase Agreement, the petitioner and

some others were not. His case seems to be that this is

discriminatory and that he is also entitled to be absorbed

in the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent has

contended that as per the Share Purchase Agreement only

those employees who are defined as continued employees

are entitled to continue in the service of Third Respondent

and that those employees including the petitioner who

are considered as transferred employees in the agreement

are not entitled to be in the service of the Third

Respondent. Apart from this, it is also contended by the

Third Respondent as well as the Second Respondent that

the claim for absorption by the petitioner is not

maintainable. According to them, it is a dispute that is

raised by the petitioner individually under Section-2A of

the ID Act which according to them is not maintainable. It

is further contended that even if a dispute is treated to be

unde5r Section-2(K) of the ID Act also the claim is not

maintainable.

9.

The prayer of the petitioner in the Claim Statement

is that “this Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the

demand of the petitioner for his absorption in Jet Lite by

the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share

Purchase Agreement dated 01.04.2007 entered by the

management of Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Sahara India

Commercial Corporation and Others and Sahara Airlines

Ltd. is justified and legal, together with back wages,

continuity of services, all increments and other attendant

benefit with costs” . Thus it could be seen that the main

relief sought by the petitioner is absorption as an employee

in the service of the Third Respondent who had purchased

the entire shares of the First Respondent by Ext.M1 and

Ext.M2. Is such a claim raised by the petitioner

maintainable? Section-2A(i) states that where any

employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise

terminates the services of an individual workman, any

dispute or difference between that workman and his

employer connected with or arising out of such discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to

be an Industrial Dispute notwithstanding that no other

workman nor any Union of Workmen is a party to the

dispute. Thus, it could be seen that Section-2A which

was brought into the statute by subsequent amendment

is a privilege and prerogative given to an individual

workman who is not supported by any Union of Workmen

to raise dispute and contest his case. However, Section-

2A places some restrictions on the workman regarding the

matters on which he is entitled to raise the dispute which

is to be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute. As could be

seen from the section, a dispute under Section-2A can be

raised only if the employer discharges, dismisses,

retrenches or otherwise terminates the service of an

individual workman. The demand of the petitioner is that

he having been a workman under the First Respondent is

entitled to continue as workman with the Third

Respondent to which the shares of the First Respondent

had been transferred and that he is entitled to be absorbed

in the services of the Third respondent Such a demand

for absorption could not be raised under Section-2A of

the ID Act since a dispute under this section can be raised

only in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination otherwise from service as a workman. So there

is sufficient force in the argument advanced on behalf of

the Second and Third Respondents that the relief of

absorption with the Third Respondent is not maintainable

under Section-2A of the ID Act.

10.

It has been pointed out by the counsel for the Third

Respondent that the claim of the petitioner could not be

treated as one under Section-2(k) of ID Act also. To raise

a dispute under this Section it should be supported by a

Union of the Workmen or a substantial number of workmen

supporting the aggrieved workman. The petitioner has no

support either from any Union or from a substantial number

of workmen so the relief of absorption is not maintainable

even under Section-2(k) of the ID Act also.

11.

It has been argued by the counsel for the Third

Respondent that even otherwise the Third Respondent is

not liable to absorb the petitioner in its services. In this

respect the terms and conditions of the Share Purchase

3868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Agreement are relevant. At the time of execution of the

agreement the employees of the First Respondent are

divided into two categories, continued employees and

others. The pilots, co-pilots, engineers, technicians and

key managers of the First Respondent are defined as

continued employees. As per the agreement the Second

Respondent and others who are the vendors have agreed

to transfer all other employees of the First Respondent

Company to any other entity of the Sahara Group. There

is a further clause that in case the transferred employees

do not agree to the transfer to any entity of the Sahara

Group they will take steps to terminate the employment of

such persons before the closing date and had also

undertaken to indemnify the purchaser against any losses

and liabilities arising out of or relating to any transferred

employee. Thus according to the Third Respondent, the

obligation of the Third Respondent is to provide

employment only to the employees who fall under the

category of continued employees. If the terms of the Share

Purchase Agreement are taken into account certainly there

is no responsibility for the Third Respondent to take within

its fold the employees of the First Respondent except the

“continued employees”.

12.

There is also a case for the petitioner that actually

the result of the Share Purchase Agreement is the merger

of the First Respondent with the Third Respondent and

not a transfer. This contention of the petitioner could not

be accepted. What is seen from the Share Purchase

Agreement is that the Second Respondent who is the major

shareholder in the First Respondent and also other

shareholders have sold the entire shares to the Third

Respondent thus effecting a transfer of the First

Respondent Company to the Third Respondent. So it is

not a case of merger also. So in the absence of any

provision in the Share Purchase Agreement, the Third

Respondent who is the transferee in respect of the First

Respondent Company is not liable to absorb the petitioner

as an employee of the Company. The point is found against

the petitioner.

Points (ii) & (iii)

13.

I have already found under Point No. 1 that the claim

for absorption is not maintainable under Section-2A or

even Section-2(K) of the ID Act. The argument that has

been advanced on behalf of the Third Respondent is that

for this reason itself the case of the petitioner is to be

thrown away at the threshold itself. In fact if the prayer

made by the petitioner in the relief portion of the Claim

Statement alone is taken into account this certainly will

hold good. But on going through the petition, it could be

seen that even if the petitioner has not made a request in

the prayer portion of the Claim Statement he has raised an

alternative claim for retrenchment compensation also. In

Para 9 of the Claim Statement the petitioner has stated that

if the contention of the Third Respondent that it is not

bound to absorb the petitioner in its service is accepted

the service of the petitioner would stand terminated by

the First Respondent and such termination would amount

to retrenchment for which permission under Section-25(N)

of the ID Act is necessary. He has stated that in any case

he would be entitled to three month’s salary in lieu of

notice under Section-25(N) of the ID Act apart from

retrenchment compensation due to him.

14.

The above contention of the petitioner is met by the

Second Respondent as well as by the Third Respondent

relying upon Section-25FF of the ID Act. The case of the

Second Respondent is that the service of the petitioner

has been transferred to the Second Respondent on transfer

of the First Respondent Company to the Third Respondent

and therefore the proviso to Section-25FF of the ID Act is

attracted and the petitioner is not entitled to any

retrenchment compensation. As per Section-25FF, in the

normal course, where the ownership or management of an

undertaking is transferred whether by agreement or by

operation of law, from the employer in relation to the

undertaking, to a new employer, every workman who

has been in continuous service for not less than 1 year in

that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall

be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with

the provisions of Section-25F of the Act as if the workman

had been retrenched. However the section is followed by

a proviso that nothing in the section shall apply to a

workman in any case where there has been a change of

employers by reason of the transfer if (a) the service of the

workman has not been interrupted by such transfer (b)

the terms and conditions of service applicable to the

workman after such transfer are not in any way less

favourable to the workman than those applicable to him

immediately before the transfer and (c) the new employer

is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally

liable to pay the workman, in the event of his retrenchment,

compensation on the basis that his service has been

continuous and not being interrupted by the transfer.

15.

The contention raised on behalf of the Second

Respondent is that the service of the petitioner having

been transferred to it consequent to the execution of the

Share Purchase Agreement, the service of the petitioner

has not been interrupted by such transfer. It is further

contended that the terms and conditions of service

applicable to the petitioner after the transfer is not less

favourable to him than those applicable to him immediately

before the transfer.

16.

Ext.W4 is the copy of the order given by the Second

Respondent to the petitioner stating that his services is

transferred to Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh in the same

cadre with effect from 07.06.2007 with the same pay and

allowances. By way of caution probably, it is further stated

that those pay and allowances shall in any way be not

less favourable than those presently drawn by the

petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3869

accepted the order of transfer and had gone to Srikakulam

in Andhra Pradesh and had joined there. What he had

stated in the Claim Statement is that he had problem in

food and language and had problems back at home and

therefore he had come back and raised the dispute. In his

affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination the petitioner has

stated that there is no privity of contract between him and

the Second Respondent who had transferred him to

Srikakulam. Again, what he has stated in his affidavit is

that though he had gone to Srikakulam he had no work

there and he was forced to come back. He has admitted

during his cross-examination that he was not terminated

from service while he was at Sri but he had come back on

his own accord from Srikakulam.

17.

The counsel for the Respondent had argued relying

upon judicial pronouncements that it is case of the

petitioner absenting himself from work and it is not a case

of termination from service and therefore he is not entitled

to any retrenchment compensation at all as if terminated

from service. Of course if it is a case of abandonment of

work the worker will not be entitled to relief.

18.

However, in spite of the fact that the petitioner, on

the basis of the transfer order had gone to Srikakulam and

joined there for duty, there seems to have been no employer

and employee relationship between him and the Second

Respondent before the Share Purchase Agreement. It is

admitted fact the petitioner was working in the First

Respondent Company as loader. Consequent to the Share

Purchase Agreement the Second Respondent seems to

have assumed the role of an employer and had been

meddling with the affairs of the petitioner. The petitioner

was then sent to the Third Respondent on deputation for

a period of 90 days. It was thereafter he was sent to

Srikakulam. Ext.W1 is the order of appointment of the

petitioner. He has been shortlisted for the job by the First

Respondent. Ext.W2 is the appointment order given to

the petitioner on completion of his probation / learning

period by the First Respondent. In spite of the fact that

the appointment was made by the First Respondent,

Ext.W4 letter was given by the Second Respondent after

the Share Purchase Agreement as if the petitioner was

employed by it but was on deputation with the First

Respondent. But this never could have been. The First

and Second are separate entities, though within the same

group of companies. The Second Respondent was only

the major shareholder in respect of the shares in the First

Respondent. As could be seen from the Share Purchase

Agreements marked as Ext.M1 and M2, three others also

had shares with the First Respondent. So the employment

of the petitioner was with the First Respondent which is

an entity different and distinct from the Second

Respondent. It is not known how the Second Respondent

had assumed the role of the employer and had pretended

that the petitioner was under its service and was on

deputation with the First Respondent. From the Counter

Statement and notes of argument submitted on behalf of

the Second Respondent it could be seen that the Second

Respondent did not consider itself as the employer of the

petitioner. In the notes of argument there is no claim that

the petitioner was under the employment of the Second

Respondent and was sent on deputation to the First

Respondent. On the other hand what is stated is that while

taking over the ownership and management of Respondent

No. 1, the management of Respondent No. 3 had not

absorbed the entire workforce on their rolls and the

claimant was one such employee of Respondent No. 1

who was not absorbed and in the circumstances, the

Second Respondent had decided to absorb him in its

service. In the Counter Statement the claim is that employer

employee relationship between the petitioner and 2nd

Respondent came into existence as the petitioner accepted

the transfer order. These statements will make it clear that

on execution of the Share Purchase Agreement the Second

Respondent had decided to have the services of the

petitioner under it. It was not a case where the Second

Respondent had employed the petitioner with the First

Respondent.

19.

Now it is to be considered whether the proviso to

Section-25FF of the ID Act will become applicable to the

case. “Change of the employer by reason of the transfer”

contemplated in the proviso is not some other employer

other than the transferee of the undertaking in question.

This is clear from the main proviso itself. Once the transfer

is effected, every workman who has been in continuous

transfer for not less than one year is entitled to

compensation in accordance with the provisions of

Section-25FF of the Act as if the workman has been

retrenched. But the provision will not apply to a workman

if the service has not been interrupted by such transfer

and the terms and conditions of service after the transfer

are not less favourable than earlier. The only interpretation

that could be given to it is that if after transfer also the

workman has been allowed to continue in the same

undertaking under the same or more favourable conditions

of service retrenchment compensation will not be payable.

If the new employer agrees to pay the Retrenchment

Compensation also the section will not apply. In the present

case, there is specific clause in the Share Purchase

Agreement that the new employer will not be liable to pay

any compensation to the employees. Apart from this the

vendors had undertaken to pay retrenchment

compensation in case the workers are not willing for a

transfer with the Second Respondent. The transfer of the

petitioner to the Second Respondent on transfer of the

First Respondent Company to the Third Respondent is

not “change of employer” as contemplated under the

proviso to Section-25FF of the Act. It is not only that the

petitioner has been thrown out under the pretext of a

transfer to the Second Respondent but has been sent to a

remote place pretending that the terms and conditions of

3870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service are not less favourable. The Second Respondent

is not an entity doing business in airlines at all. It is

not known what is the kind of office or work the Second

Respondent is having at Srikakulam. Even by the unilateral

decision of the First and Second Respondent to take in

the service of the petitioner by the Second Respondent

there is interruption in the service of the petitioner. Again,

the nature of work, that the petitioner was given at

Srikakulam, whatever it is, has nothing to do with the work

that was done by him with the First Respondent as loader

at the Airport. MW2 examined on behalf of the Second

Respondent has stated in his Affidavit that it is not doing

business in airlines. So under any circumstances, the

proviso to Section-25FF of the ID Act is not applicable to

the case. If the proviso is not applicable the petitioner

would be entitled to retrenchment compensation under

Section-25F of the Act. Section-25FF of the Act states

that in case of transfer of an undertaking the worker is

entitled to notice and compensation under Section-25F as

if he had been retrenched. The case of the petitioner is

that he is entitled to benefit under Section-25(N) of the

Act as the First Respondent was an industrial

establishment employing more than 100 workers. It is not

in dispute that more than 100 workmen were employed by

the First Respondent. Section 25(N) states that no

workman employed in any industrial establishment to

which the chapter applies who has been in continuous

service for not less than one year shall be retrenched until

the workman has been given three months notice or has

been paid wages for the period of notice. Thus the

difference between Section-25(F) and Section-25(N) of the

ID Act is that while the earlier section provides for notice

or pay for 1 month, the latter section provides for three

months notice or pay in lieu of such notice for the period

of notice. Being an industrial establishment to which

Chapter-5D of the Act is applicable, the petitioner was

entitled to three months notice. In the absence of any

such notice, he will be entitled to wages for three months.

Apart from this, he will be entitled for compensation under

Section-25(F)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act also.

20.

The petitioner was admittedly in the service of the

First Respondent from 31.01.1994. Thus he was in the

service of First Respondent for almost 13 years. He will be

entitled to wages for 15 days for each completed year of

service. The petitioner has stated that at the time of Share

Purchase Agreement he was drawing salary of Rs. 7,763.

The First Respondent has already paid Rs. 40,000 to the

petitioner, though as ex-gratia payment. Considering

everything the compensation payable to the petitioner is

fixed as Rs. 1,00,000.

21.

Now the question is on whom is the liability to pay

the compensation. As already stated, as per the terms of

the Share Purchase Agreement, the Third Respondent has

no liability to compensate the employees of the First

Respondent. So liability could not be cast on the Third

Respondent. The First Respondent is the establishment

with which the petitioner was employed. Clause-12.2 of

the Share Purchase Agreement states that if the employees

are not willing to be transferred to any other entity the

vendors will take steps to cause the company that is the

First Respondent to terminate the employment of such

persons before the closing date. The vendors of which

the Second Respondent is the major share holder had also

agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the company and

the purchaser against any and all losses, claims and

liabilities arising out of or relating to any transferred

employees including as regards the termination or

retrenchment benefits. So Respondents 1 and 2 are liable

to pay compensation to the petitioner.

22.

Accordingly, I direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to

pay the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation. The

amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date

of the award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 12th February, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Sri P. Suresh

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Ms. A. Sadhana

1st, 2nd & 3rd Management: MW2, Sri V. Devraj

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

31.01.1994

Appointment Order

Ex.W2

27.09.1995

Appointment Confirmation letter

by the 1st Opposite Party

Ex.W3

27.12.2007

The petitioner legal notice to the

1st Opposite Party

Ex.W4

01.06.2007

Letter to the petitioner from

Sahara

India

Commercial

Corporation Limited.

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

18.01.2006

Share Purchase Agreement

Ex.M2

01.04.2007

Amended

Share

Purchase

Agreement

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3871

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1453-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lgkjk

,vjykbZul fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 59 dk 2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@27@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of M/s Sahara Airlines

Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-11012/27/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 9th January, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 59/2009

(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 M/s Sahara Airlines and Two Others

and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Govindaraj

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd.

: 2nd Party/

L-70/329, Mahipalpur Extension 1st Respondent

New Delhi-110037

2. M/s Sahara India Commercial : 2nd Party/

Corpn. Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Aliganj, Lucknow-226024

3. M/s Jet Airways Ltd.,

: 2nd Party/

Andheri East, Mumbai-400059

3rd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: Sri K. Sudalaikannu,

Petitioner

S. Annamalai, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s Gupta & Ravi,

1st and 3rd Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: Sri V. Devraj, Authorized

2nd Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/27/2009-IR (CM-I)

dated 19.06.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demand of Sri K. Govindaraj for his

absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet

Airways with reference to the Share Purchase

Agreement of dated 01.04.2007 entered by the

Management of Jet Airways (India) Limited, Sahara

India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and others and

Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and legal? (ii) To

what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 59/2009 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed claim and counter statements

respectively. The evidence was recorded in the case also

and the matter has been posted for hearing. In the

meanwhile, the parties have settled the matter. They have

filed a joint memo stating that they have entered into a

settlement regarding the dispute and that the petitioner is

withdrawing the dispute.

3.

In the above circumstance, the above ID is closed

as withdrawn.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 9th January, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

:

None

Documents marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

—Nil—

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

—Nil—

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1454-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

3872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87

dk 2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@107@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2000)

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 M/s BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/107/1999-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947

LOK- ADALAT

Ref. No. 87 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of

Mudidih Colliery, M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.

: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: Shri S.N.Goswami, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated. 31/3/2014

AWARD.

By Order No.L-20012/107/1999-IR(C-I), dated

18/08/1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Mudidih

Colliery of M/S BCCL in not regularising Sri Bhola

Nath Jaiswara, M/Loader to the post of Hindi Typist

or U.G. Munshi is justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled.

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

23.02.2000. The workman files their written statement on

30.04.2007. The point involved in the reference is that the

workman is Miner Loader but he is working as Hindi typist,

And his case for regurisation.

3.

In course of hearing of the case It is felt proper to

decide the case in following manner.

4.

The workman is out of employment since 1996. It is

felt that his regularization as Hindi typist is not proper but

the workman be taken as miner Loader in the service roll of

the management Hence it is ordered to take the workman

as a miner loader immediately without back wages, after

the publication of the award in the Gazette of India.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1455-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 186

dk 2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@38@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 186/

2000) 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 M/s

BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/38/2000-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

Reference 186 of 2000

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

Loyabad Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3873

Present: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated 26/2/2014

AWARD.

By order No. L-20012/38/2000 /IR (C-I) dated 29/06/

2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of Koyla Ispat Mazdoor

Panchayat for regularizing Sri Ahmad Ansari, General

Mazdoor in the job of Turner Helper from 20.04.94

from the management of Loyabad Colliery of

M/s. BCCL is justified ? If so, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled ?”

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] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1456-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28

dk 2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@21@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 28/2007) 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 M/s BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/21/2007-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 28 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of Tetulmari

Colliery, Sijua Area , M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND.

Their workmen.

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers.

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: Sri N.M.Kumar, Advocate

State :- Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

Dated 24/2/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/21/2007 -IR -(CM-I), dated

03/05/2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Shri Munna Kumar Mallah, S/O Late

Shanti Mallahin, W/Loader, Under the provision of

NCWA is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is

the dependent son of late Shanti Mallahin entitled?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

03.07.2007. After notice both parties appeared. The Union/

workman files their written statement on 07.08.2009.The

management files their written statement -cum-rejoinder

on 18.08.2010. Thereafter rejoinder and documents

received by the parties.

3.

The short point involve in the case is whether the

workman’s dependent who was twelve years old at the

time of his mother’s death as BCCL employee is entitled to

job on compassionate ground. It is not disputed that the

applicant was not the son of the deceased workman but

was delay.

4.

The delay which was caused was not due to the

latches of the workman because, he was applying for the

post and he was quite minor at the time of his mother’s

death.

5.

At the time of his mother’s death no one is in the

family as a guardian, only two minors is there one munna

3874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mallah and his 10 years old sister. Death in the family of a

working man is really a harness and constant burden on

the entire family.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Shri Munna Kumar Mallah, S/O Late Shanti

Mallahin, W/Loader, Under the provision of NCWA is not

justified , Hence the applicant be given employment on

natural justice after observing all formalities without being

rigid at least. The result of implementation of award be

communicate to this Tribunal for reference.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1457-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

13@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@472@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 13/1999) 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 M/s BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/472/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 13 of 1999

Employers in relation to the management of Bhalgora

Colliery of M/S B.C.C.L.

AND.

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: Sri D.Mukherjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

Dated. 21/2/2014

AWARD.

By Order No.L-20012/472/1997 -IR -(C-I) dated

27/01/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S

BCCL in denying the employment to wife of

Sri Maheshwar Manjhi on compassionate ground is

legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the wife of

concerned workman is entitled to?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

08.02.1999. After notice both parties appeared, the

sponsoring Union files their written statement on

14.07.1999. The Management files their written statement-

cum- rejoinder on 16.12.1999. Thereafter the workman files

their rejoinder on 10.04.2000.

3.

The short point involved in this case is whether

dependent of the dismissed workman is entitled to

compensatory employment under the management .

4.

The case of the workman is since the workman has

been illegally dismissed , his legal representative, the

present applicant be given employment.

5.

On the other hand the counsel for the management

submits that, since the workman has been rightly dismissed

and it has accepted the same, as he is not raised the dispute

against the dismissal order of the management, his claim

can not be entertained, After dismissal and death of the

deceased workman this dispute is raised for dependent

employment. The present applicant has no claim what so

ever.

6.

Before this Tribunal record of dismissal is not here.

No this Tribunal has any scope to say whether the

dismissal of the workman was proper or not. Moreover no

reference to that effect made before this Tribunal.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold that

the action of the management of M/S BCCL in denying

the employment to wife of Sri Maheshwar Manjhi on

compassionate ground is legal and justified. Therefore

there is no scope to give any relief to the applicant in this

reference. The reference answered against the workman.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3875

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1458-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 80

dk 2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@196@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1458.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2004) of

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

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/196/2003-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 80 of 2004

Employers in relation to the management of

P.B.Area, M/S BCCL

AND.

Their workmen.

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers.

: Sri D.K Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: Sri P.M. Prasad, Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 17/2/2014

AWARD.

By Order No.L-20012/196/2003 -IR (C-I), dated.

17/12/2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

“ Whether the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery

Mazdoor congress from the management of south

Balihari colliery for regularizing Sri Jethu Mahto as

store mate in clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 02.05.95 is

justified ? If so , to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?”

2.

After receipt of the reference 20.07.2004 both parties

are noticed, The Sponsoring Union/workman files their

written statement on 08.11.2004, Thereafter the

management files their written statement on 19.07.2005.

workman filed seven documents marked as exhibit w.1 to

w.7. one witness each has been examined by both side.

3.

The claim of the workman is that he is to be

regularized In clerical grade as he has requisite

qualification and experience. Not only that vide Ext. w-7

the workman’s name has been recommended for

consideration of his name for the post of clerical grade-III

by Deputy Chief Personnel Manager P.B. Area.

4.

It has also transpired that he has been working as

store mate for about 3 years. The management witness

admitted Ext. W-7 is their document. As per letter no. BL/

Authorisation/95/45 dated 02.05.1995 workman concerned

is authorized to work as store mate with immediate effect

which is marked as W-1. Without any speaking order the

higher authority refused to regularize the workman, and

simply ordered he is not to be regularized is illegal.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery

Mazdoor congress of the management of South Balihari

Colliery for regularizing Sri Jethu Mahto as store mate in

clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 02.05.95 is legal and justified. Hence

the workman is recommended to be regularized. He be

regularized in the said post soon after the publication of

the award in the gazette of India.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1459-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27

dk 2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@379@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 27/2000) of

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

1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/379/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

3876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 27 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of Giddi

Washery, M/S C.C.L

AND.

Their workmen.

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.

: Sri D.K.Verma. Advocate

For the workman.

: Sri D.Mukherjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal.

Dated.7/4/2014

AWARD.

By Order No.L-20012/379/1998 -IR -(C-I), dated

03/01/2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Giddi

Washery, M/S C.C. Ltd, P.O-Giddi, “A” Distt-

Hazaribagh in not regularizing 111 piece rated

workers (as per list) to time rated category is legal

and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled and from what date ?”

Annexure

(List of workmen)

1

Smt Samaji Lohar

2

Smt Fudwa

3

Smt Parden Oraon

4

Smt. Piyaso Tigga

5

Smt.Surti Bedia

6

Smt. Rupai Oraon

7

Smt. Dhular Devi

8

Smt. Lalit Oraon

9

Smt. Dulari Tigga

10

Smt. Shanti No.I

11

Smt. Feto Munda

12

Smt. Saro Mahali

13

Smt. Nagi Oraon

14

Smt. Bali Mahato

15

Smt. Dayamuni Tigga

16

Smt. Mangari Oraon

17

Smt. Budhni Munda

18

Smt. Bimla Oraon

19

Smt. Lalmati Devi

20

Smt. Birsi Munda

21

Smt. Kadmi Bedia

22

Smt. Sundari Oraon

23

Smt. Bedia Oraon

24

Smt. Parmila Munda

25

Smt. Churmunia

26

Smt. Budhni Bedia No.1

27

Smt. Lakhpatia

28

Smt. Runuwa Gunjhu

29

Smt. Sumitra Oraon

30

Smt. Tilki Bedia

31

Smt. Malti Munda

32

Smt. Koshilya Munda-1

33

Smt. Sanhho Gunjhu

34

Smt. Birsi Bedia(raw coal)

35

Smt. Birsi Bedia (RCRA)

36

Smt. Gujri Ganjnu

37

Smt. Sugia Lohar-2

38

Smt. Hiramuni Oraon

39

Smt. Hiramuni

40

Smt. Johny Oraon

41

Smt. Pramila Bhagat

42

Smt. Surpatia Bedia -2

43

Smt. Pyarmuni Manjhi

44

Smt. Panwa Mohli

45

Smt. Sukhmuni Shah

46

Smt. Butan Bedia

47

Smt. Bandhni Oraon

48

Smt. Kari Oraon

49

Smt. Salmi Oraon

50

Smt. Nirmala Kujur

51

Smt. Jatri Karmali

52

Smt. Hulasi Bedia

53

Smt. Dashmi Ganjhu

54

Smt. Manti Oraon

55

Smt. Dayanti Oraon

56

Smt. Ratni Munda No. 2

57

Smt. Ratni Bedia-1

58

Smt. Subasi No.1

59

Smt. Sugia Karmali -1

60

Smt. Lilua Bedia

61

Smt. Fulmania Ganjhu-1

62

Smt. Maina Oraon

63

Smt. Kaushilya Ganjhu-1

64

Smt. Karmi Ganjhu

65

Smt. Dhaneshwari Mistry

66

Smt. Sarswatia Ganjhu -1

67

Smt. Popen Oraon

68

Smt. Dhamatia Ganjhu No. 1

69

Smt. Fulmania Mahli-2

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3877

70

Smt. Tali Bakhla

71

Smt. Surpatia Bedia

72

Smt. Bedna

73

Smt. Raimuni

74

Smt. Alkha Mahli

75

Smt. Munia Ganjhu No.1

76

Smt. Munia No.2

77

Smt. Balki Oraon

78

Smt.Parwatia Munda-1

79

Smt. Sanjhwa Oraon

80

Smt. Durgi Oraon

81

Smt. Reshmi Bedia

82

Smt. Sitamuni Bedia

83

Smt. Panwa Bedia

84

Smt. Meri Oraon

85

Smt. Basmatia Bedia No. 2

86

Smt. Pusni Karmali

87

Smt. Sarojni Kerketta

88

Smt. Bilaso Ganjhu

89

Smt. Muju Munda No.2

90

Smt. Sanichari Bedia

91

Smt. Bandhni Munda No-3

92

Smt. Basmatia Munda No.2

93

Smt. Fulmania Ganjhu No.3

94

Smt. Sohgi Ganjhu

95

Smt. Fulmania Mistri

96

Smt. Talomuni

97

Smt. Tito Oraon

98

Smt. Jamuna Oraon

99

Smt. Sonamuni Oraon

100

Smt. Manju Bedia No.1

101

Smt. Aso Ganjhu

102

Smt. Jhalwa Bedia

103

Smt. Bariso Ganjhu

104

Smt. Sarsawatia Munda No.2

105

Smt. Fundi Devi

106

Smt. Kari Ganjhu No. 2

106

Smt. Mangri Munda No. 2

108

Smt. Sonamati

109

Smt. Panmati

110

Smt. Sukarmuni

111

Smt. Fula Ganjhu

2.

This Case is received from the Ministry on

17.01.2000. During the pendency of the case Sponsoring

Union submits that management is regularized all the

workmen in the meantime & praying that the Union is not

contesting the reference. It is felt that the dispute between

parties is resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed.

communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1460-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24

dk 2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@96@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2010)

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 M/s. BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/96/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 24 of 2010

Employer in relation to the management of P.B.Area of

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman.

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

: Sri R.Ram, Rep

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 20/3/2014

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/96/2009 IR-(CM-I), dated

11/02/2010 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Gopalichuk Colliery under P.B. Area, of M/s. BCCL

in dismissing Shri Balmukund Bhuia, M/Loader

from the service of the company w.e.f. 20.08.2007 is

justified and legal? To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?”

3878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

08.03.2010 After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 16.04.2010. And the management files their

written statement -cum-rejoinder on 17.04.2013. The point

involved in the reference is that the workman has been

dismissed from his services

3.

During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

But he has already out of service for 7 years. It is felt to

give another chance to the workman to serve.

4.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But

the workman be kept under probation for a period one

year and his performance report be given to the under

signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not

arise at all.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1461-—vkS|ksfxd vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 329@2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@219@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1461.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 329/

2000) 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 M/s

CCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/219/2000-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

1947

Reference No. 329 of 2000

Employer in relation to the management of Pindra

Colliery of M/S CCL.

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

: Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coa.

Dated 25/2/ 2014

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/219/2000 (C-I), dated

25/10/2000 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

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

–Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S CCL

Pindra Colliery in terminating the services of Shri

Charka Rabidas w.e.f. 26.04.99 on ground of

unauthorized absence is just, fair and legal? If not,

to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

26.11.2000 After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement and the management also files their written

statement -cum-rejoinder. The point involved in the

reference is that the workman has been terminated from

his services.

3.

During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty

but he cross the age of superannuation during the

pendency of the case.

4.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case

I hold that question considering of his re-employment does

not arise. But it is felt that the date of dismissal of the

workman be treated its premature retirement and

accordingly the retirement benefits be given to him.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1462-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3879

123@1995) izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@424@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1462.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 123/95)

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 M/s BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/424/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 123 of 1995

Employer in relation to the management of

Simla Bahal Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma,Advocate

For the workman

: Sri S.C.Gour, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry :-Coa.

Dated 24/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/424/93-IR (C-I), dated

06/10/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union for

regularisation by the management of Simla Bahal

Colliery under Balgora Area of M/S BCCL of Shri

Gopal Saran Singh and 107 other workers ( as per list

enclosed) is justified ? If so, to what relief the

concerned workman are entitled?”

Sl.

Name

Father’s Name

No.

1

2

3

1.

Gopal Saran Singh

Sri Khakanu Ram

2.

Binay Prasad

Sri Bhagwan Singh

3.

Binesh Prasad

Sri Mathura Prasad

4.

Shovnath Bhagat

Sri Ramrup Bhagat

5.

Mahesh Pasi

Sri Banshdhari Pasi

6.

Suresh Prasad

Sri Mathura Prasad

7.

Rajendra Prasad Singh

Sri Rambilash Singh

8.

Mahesh Ram

Sri Sahdeo Ram

9.

Vinay Ram

Sri Ganauri Ram

10. Sheshnath Bhagat

Sri Ramrup Bhagat

11. Bali Ram

Late Malitar Ram

12. Naresh Choudhary

Sri prem Choudhary

13. Doman Choudhary

Sri Mundar Choudhary

14. Radheshyam Sonar

Sri Nondlal Sonar

15. Arjun Choudhary

Sri Ram Chandra Choudhary

16. BhiKhari Choudhary

Sri Bharat Choudhary

17. Awadhesh Choudhary Sri Manik Chand Choudhary

18. Alok Kr. Das

Sri Muktipad Das

19. Mahesh Pd. Malakar

Sri Shyam Narayan Bhagat

20. Jitendra Nath Mazumdar Sri Aswani Kr. Mazumdar

21. Suraj Mahato

Sri Maina Mahato

22. Ram Sagar Choudhary

Sri Prahalad Choudhary.

23. Bindhi Choudhary

Sri Chauthi Choudhary

24. Krishna Choudhary

Sri Balkeshwar Choudhary

25. Jagdish Mishtry

Sri Harihar Mistry

26. Krishna Mahato

Sri Naina Mahato

27. Prash Choudhary

Sri Jadunandan Choudhary

28. Shivpujan Choudhary

Sri Rajgri Choudhary

29. Mahindra Ram

Sri Dhanukdhari Ram

30. Ram Sagar Choudhary

Sri Shyam Lal Choudhary

31. Gopal Choudhary

Sri Lakhan Choudhary

32. Tirath Dhikar

Sri Jathu Dhikar

33. Saish Kr. Singh

Sri Khakhanu Singh

34. Gulab Buia

Sri Gandu Buia

35. Lallu Bhouri

———

36. Munilal Choudhary

Sri Bharath Choudhary

37. Ramsagar Choudhary

Sri Basu Choudhary

38. Ashok Kr. Rajbhar

Sri Satyananaryan Rajbhar

39. Rajesh Kr. Modak

Sri Rampada Modak

40. Ramabhar Roy

Sri Ramdeo Ray

41. Nand Kishore Choudhary Sri Sharan Choudhary

42. Rameshwar Choudhary

Sri Deo Choudhary

43. Gopal Choudhary

Sri Ram Kishori Choudhary

3880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

44. Bhakori Choudhary

Sri Chhantu Choudhary

45. Mahendra Choudhary

Sri Shiv Ratan Choudhary

46. Eswar Choudhary

Sri Kailash Choudhary

47. Arjun Choudhary

Sri Panchu Choudhary

48. Kamlesh Choudhary

Sri Jutta Choudhary

49. Munilal Choudhary

Sri Gulab Ch. Choudhary

50. Gangabishun Choudhary Sri Ramdyari Choudhary

51. Sarjoon Choudhary

Sri Pachu Choudhary

52. Arjoon Choudhary

Sri Shivsharn Choudhary

53. Bauleshwar Choudhary Sri Gulab Chand Choudhary

54. Sadhu Choudhary

Sri Mandar Choudhary

55. Parash Choudhary

Sri jatta Choudhary

56. Ramprit Choudhary

Sri Ram Jatan Choudhary

57. Rajendra Prasad

Sri Ghutukun Ram

58. Suresh Prasad ‘B’

Sri Late Jagdeo Ram

59. Mahon Sharma

Sri Narshingh Sharma

60

Rajsaroj Pasi

Sri Jantilal Pashi

61. Birendra Sharma

Sri Baidhnath Sharma

62. Panaur Bhar

Sri Shivnath Bhar

63. Ramiurat Bhar

Sri Ram Naresh Bhar

64. Suresh paswan

Sri Bhuneshwar Paswan

65. Vidyamal Choudhary

Sri Khadiram Choudhary

66. Ram Prasad Choudhary Sri Deoki Choudhary

67. Maini Ram

Sri Lalu Ram

68. Binod Pd. Dhikar

Sri Balshakhu Dhikar

69. Shyam Sundar Kushwaha Sri Chando Mahato

70. Deonath Rajbhar

Sri Bahadur Rajbhar

71. Shankar Dhikar

Sri————

72. Murari Rajbhar

Sri Sahadeo Rajbhar

73. Rambhajan Ram

Sri Barhu Ram

74. Upendra Kumar

Sri Rameshwar

75. Dinesh Prasad Dhikar

Sri Ram Kishun Dhikar

76. Ashok Kr. Ray

Sri Parsuram Ray

77. Kallu Dhikar

Sri Ganda Dhikar

78. Ganaury Buia

Sri Parameshwar Bhuia

79. Munna Rajbhar

Sri Roti Chand Rajbhar

80. Markanday Morya

Sri Sharda Prasad

81. Chandradeo Bhuia

Sri Banshi Bhuia

82. Surendra Bhuia

Sri —————

83. Birendra Rajbhar

Sri Jiyaou Rajbhar

84. Ram Lakhan Rajbhar

Sri Ram Kihan Rajbhar

85. Munna prasad

sri Shivshankar Roy

86. Bhola Rajbhar

Sri Thakur Rajbhar

87. Damodar Rajbhar

Sri Rajali Rajbhar

88. Harendra Prasad

Sri Sakaldip Prasad

89. Rajandra Bhardwaj

Sri Bhaggu Bhardwaj

90. Ballaran Bhardwaj

Sri Bhaggu Bhardwaj

91. Dalsingar Bhardwaj

Sri Dwarika Bhardwaj

92. Shyamlal Ram

Sri Munarik Ram

93. Palak Rajbhar

Sri kanta Rajbhar

94. Balkishun Rajbhar

Sri kanta Rajbhar

95. Birendra Bhardwaj

Sri Bhaggu Bhardwaj

96. Mahendra Ram

Sri Suresh Ram

97. Umesh Bishwakarma

Sri Jankilal Bishwakarma

98. Bijay Bahadur Singh

Sri Lata Bishwanath Singh

99. Ashok Kr. Singh

Sri Mathura Singh

100. Prahalad Gahlot

Sri Kariman Gohlot

101. Sarjoo Paswan

Sri Kamlishar Paswan

Note : In the list of 108 workman submitted by the Union ,

the Sl.No. 18, 22, 64, 78, 85, 91 and 92 are not available

with details of name and fathers name . as such the

actual list is comprising of 101 only instead of 108

workman.

2.

After receipt of the reference parties are noticed,

they submitted their claim statements, and rejoinder and

documents. The claim of the workman is that they were

rendering services to the management and when they

claimed regularization, they were refused employment.

3.

On the other hand the management submitted that

the workmen were not their employees. Rather they were

member of a co-operative society who provided man power

to the management on payment. Even there was no

agreement between the co-operative society or the

management that the workman will be regularised

subsequently. In this case the document like I.D card of

the workmen and pay slip has been filed . But the workman

were unable to produce any appointment letter of the

management.

4.

The workmen were simply working as contract

labour, and there is no law for regularisation of the same

as per the present law. As per the case of state of Karnataka

Vrs Uma Devi case of the Apex Court reported in 2009 SC

(L&S) Vil (1) page 943, regularisation of casual, adhoc and

contractual labour has been virtually been banned.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstance and law of

the Apex Court the demand of the Union for regularisation

by the management of Simla Bahal Colliery under Balgora

Area of M/S BCCL of Shri Gopal Sharma Singh and 107

other workers ( as per list enclosed) is not justified.

Therefore their regularisation can not be done. At the same

time they should not been thrown away. They can be

absorbed as they were in the management previously.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

1

2

3

1

2

3

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3881

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1463-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

206@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@212@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1463.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/

1994) 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

M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/212/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 206/ 1994

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of

Ena Colliery, Kustore Area M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 21/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/212/93-IR (C-I) dated 12/8/1994

the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Ena

Colliery Under Kustore Area No. VIII of M/s. BCCL

P.O Kustore , Dist-Dhanbad in denying the

regularization of Shri Satyanarain Singh and 12

others( As per the list annexed) wi.e.f 24.2.1991 with

all consequential benefits is justified? If not to what

relief the workman are entitled ?”

Annexure

(List of workmen )

1. S/shri Satyanarain Singh, 2. Ranjit Singh, 3. Sanjay Kr

Singh , 4. Deo Kr. Singh . 5. Rajesh Kumar 6. Raj Kumar

Singh, 7. Saroj Kr. Singh. 8 Vijay Singh, 9. Narasingh

Mishra 10. Shiv Paratap Singh, 11. Kamlesh Singh, 12.

Dharamnath Singh ,13. Santosh Kumar Singh

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] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1464-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47

dk 1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@52@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1464.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/1994)

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 M/s. BCCL,

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/52/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

3882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference : No. 47/ 1994

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of

Koyla Bhawan , M/S BCCL

AND.

Their workmen.

Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated 24/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/52/ 93 /IR (C-I) dated 09/03/

1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for promoting

S/Shri S.N. Mishra and nine other workmen (as given

in the Schedule Below) to the post of cooperative

inspectors Grade ‘A’ w.e.f. 19/06/90 by the

management of M/s BCCL is justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?.”

Annexure

1.

Shri S.N. Mishra

2. Shri S.P. Pandey

3.

Shri M. Mahato

4. Shri R.A.Sinha

5.

Shri Indrajit Singh

6. Shri M.M. Rahman

7.

Shri D. Banerjee

8. Shri M. N. Tripathi

9.

Shri B. Oraon

10. Shri R.L. Rabidas

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] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1465-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

161@1994) izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@86@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161/

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

No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/86/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 161/ 1994

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Kustore

Area M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present : SRI R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/86/ 93 /IR (C-I) dated 25/07/

1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of the union for regularization

of the services of Shri K.K. Shukla and 4 others (as

per list enclosed) working in the canteen run in the

premises of Kustore Area Office of M/s. BCCL is

justified? If not, whether the workers concerned are

entitled to any relief ?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3883

Annexure

S.

Name with

Fathers’ Name

Permanent

No. Designation

Address

1.

Sri Kishore

Sri Mangar

Vill- Dharhar,

Kumar Shukla

Pd. Shukla

P.S. Bindhyachal,

Manager

Dist. Mirzapur

2.

Sri Ashok Kr.

Do

Do

Shukla Cook

3.

Sri Kishore

Sri Banshi Sap

Vill- Saraiychatti,

Pd. Keshri

P.S.- Barh

Canteen Boy.

Dist. Hazaribagh

4.

Sri Bharat Yadav

Late Jitan

Vill- Radhanagar,

Canteen Boy

Yadav

P.S. Sikandra

Dist. Jumai

5.

Sri Sarth

Sri Bishnupad

Vill- Jhapara,

Chandra Das

Das

P.O. –Jhapara,

P.S.-Panda,

Dist.-Purulia

(W.B)

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] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1466-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38 dk 1998) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@455@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1466.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/1998)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL,

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/455/1996-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 38 OF 1998

PARTIES : Shi Indradeo Singh

Village & PO Sonebhadra,

Distt: Jahanabad

Vs.

The Project Officer,

Religara Colliery

PO : Religara,

Distt : Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/455/96-IR (Coal-I)

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/

: Mr. Chandrika Prasad,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management : Mr. D. K.Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 31st March, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

455/96-IR(Coal-I) dt.19/27.2.1998.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Religrra

Colliery of CCL in dismissing Shri Indradeo Singh,

Ex-Dumper Operator w.e.f. 2.3.94 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/455/96-IR(Coal-

I) dt.19/27.2.1998 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 38

of 1998 was registered on 16th March,1998 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers

appeared in, and contested the case.

3884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2

The case of workman Indradeo Singh is that he had

been spotlessly working as Dumper Operator in the Religra

Colliery since 1983. He was labourious, honest and

characterful man, but he has been falsely implicated in

false rape case for animosity between workers and Union

rivalry. He was issued the chargesheet-cum-suspension

as per the Order No Rel.P.D./Disc.Agrion/93/2326 dt.26/

28.6.1993 based on the allegation of rape under P.S.Case

No.63/93 u/s 376 I.P.C. against him as reported by Gidi

Police Station Officer I/C’s Letter No. 210 dt.26.8.1993

which constituted misconduct of moral turpitude, as well

as on that of his unauthorized absentism w.e.f. 16.8.1993,

the misconduct under clause 17(i) of the Certified Standing

Order of the Company. So far as the first charge of rape is

concerned, it has no specific clause of the Standing Orders

of the Company which does not empowers the

Management to take action on the police report against

him. But the alleged charge is baseless and contradictory

to the first one, as he had applied for leave which was

refused, and he had been in the jail custody in regard to

that case to the knowledge of the Management.

Further alleged is that the Enquiry Officer A.K. Dhar,

the Colliery Manager, conducted ex-parte enquiry, without

any notice of enquiry, any enquiry report. The enquiry

was not fairly and properly conducted, yet the

Management arbitrarily and illegally dismissed him on

flimsy grounds. The workman raised the Industrial dispute

before the A.L.C. (C), Hazaribagh, but its failure in

conciliation resulted in the reference for adjudication. The

action of the Management in dismissing the workman w.e.f.

2.3.1994 is not justified.

No rejoinder filed by the workman to the written

statement cum rejoinder of the O.P./Management.

3.

Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

reference, the contra case of the O.P./management with

specific denials is that the Officer-In charge, Gidi Police

Station as per his letter No. dt.26.8.93 had affirmatively

reported about workman Indradeo Singh as an accused in

Gidi P.S. Case No.63/913 u/s 376 of the I.P.C.which was

true. The action of the workman was his misconduct of

the moral turpitude, i.e., commission of rape. He has also

began to absent from his duty w.e.f. 16.8.1993

unauthorisedly.It was also his misconduct .The

Management initiated the disciplinary action against the

workman. He was issued the charge sheet dt.26./

28.8.93.The Management appointed the Enquiry Officer

for domestic enquiry into the chargesheet. After fairly

conducting the enquiry in accordance with the principles

of Natural justice, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

enquiry report, holding charges to have been proved

against the workman. On the report of the Enquiry Officer,

the Disciplinary Authority perused the chargesheet,

Enquiry proceeding, enquiry Report and gravity of the

misconduct and dismissed the workman w.e.f. 2.3.1994 for

proved misconduct.Therefore; the dismissal of the

workman is legal and justified. The O.P./Management has

sought the permission to adduce afresh evidence for proof

of the charge, in case the enquiry at preliminary issue was

found unfair.

4.

The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

categorically denied the allegations of the workman, and

stated that the workman had never informed the

management that he was in jail custody in respect of the

said P.S.Case

FINDING WITH REASONS

5.

In the instant case, the Tribunal as per its Order No.,

30 dt.5.5.2006 has held the domestic enquiry unfair, so the

O.P./Management has afresh examined MWI Arjun Kumar

Paliya as the workman examined himself as a WWI on

merits.

Mr. Chandrika Prasad learned Advocate for the

workman had submitted that in the instant case, the OP./

Management by holding ex-parte enquiry against the

workman for the two charges firstly for moral turpitude,

i.e., commission of rape under Giddi P.S. Case No.63/93

under Sec.376 I.P.C. and secondly for unauthorized

absentism w.e.f. 16.08.1993, the misconduct under clause

17(i)d of the Standing Order of the company concerned,

but the first charge based on the police report and beyond

the standing orders of the Company could not be proved.

To him so far as the second charge of unauthorized

absentism against the workman is concerned, it is

baseless, as the application he had applied for granting

leave was refused because he had been in jail custody in

respect of the said police case which was to the knowledge

of the O.P./Management as also informed on his behalf to

the Management; the workman was served neither with

the chargesheet nor with any notice of the enquiry which

was unpublished in any Local News paper nor with any

enquiry Report. Non furnishing of the enquiry report to

the delinquent would be violative of the principle of natural

justice rendering the final order invalid as held by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors

Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in 1991 SCC (L & S) 612

(para 13 & 15) in reference to Articles 311(2) 1st proviso

(after 42 Amendment)

Further plea of Mr. Chandrika Prasad, Learned

Advocate for the workman based on the ruling reported in

2007(1)JCR 109 (Jhar.), Ramashish Vs. Jharkhand & Ors. is

that the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold that

the charges against the Appellant for commission of rape

and murder are yet to be established in a competent Court

of Law, and without there being a verdict from the

Competent Court, no disciplinary proceeding for

dereliction of duty can be initiated and are contrary to

law; so the order of dismissal set aside as unsustainable,

and it was directed to reinstate in service (Para 4 & 6).

Mr. C. Prasad has urged for holding the workman entitled

to reinstatement with full back wages.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3885

Whereas the contra contention of Mr. D.K.Verma,

the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management is that the

workman was dismissed for the misconduct of his

unauthorized absentism as he had evaded his arrest for

rape having been committed by him upon the daughter of

his colleague; and on the proof of his conduct of

unauthorized absence from duty, he was awarded with the

punishment of dismissal for it which is quite proper in

view of the nature of his grave misconduct.

6.

On the perusal and consideration of the afresh

materials of both the parties as brought on the case record,

I am also of the view that factually merely registration of

a criminal FIR against the workman for allegation of rape

as alleged moral turpitude does not constitute any

misconduct. The first charge as levelled against the

workman appears to be legally untenable. But so far as the

second charge of unauthorized absentism against the

workman is concerned, it is indisputable fact about his

unauthorized absentism from his duty at the relevant time,

as the workman has not been able to bring any document

on the record to justify his absence from duty. However,

the dismissal of the workman on that score appears to be

not reasonable, rather disproportionate to the nature of

his misconduct for unauthorized absentism.It is liable to

be set aside. Workman deserves the relief under Sec.11 A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The argument of

Mr. Chandrika Prasad, Advocate for the workman seems

plausible and appreciative.

In results, in the terms of the reference, it is

responded, and accordingly hereby

ORDERED

That the Award is and the same be passed that the

action of the Management of Religara Colliery of M/s CCL

in dismissing Shri Indradeo Singh, Ex-Dumper Operator

w.e.f. 2.3.1994 is unjustified. So the workman is entitled to

reinstatement in his service but without wages. The O.P./

Management is directed to implement the Award within

one month from the date of its receipt following its

publication in the Gazette of India by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1467-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

71@1996) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@189@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/96)

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

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/189/1995-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 71 OF 1996.

PARTIES : The Secretary,

BCKU, Hirapur, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager, Kusunda Area of

M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/Union: None

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 4th March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

189/95-IR(C-I) dt. 26.07.96.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of in

dismissing from the services of Sh.Kedaran

Singh,Trammer is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?.”

2.

None appeared for the Union but Mr.D.K.Verma, the

Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management is present, yet no

MW on merits produced. But Mr. Verma has submitted

that the case is pending for hearing over the petition filed

on 23.1.2004 on behalf of the Management about the

maintainability of the present Reference under

adjudication. He has to submit that the present Reference

was raised on behalf of the workman for his reinstatement,

but his wife Smt. Phulwa Devi had admittedly filed her

Title Suit No.95/1998 in the Court of the Ld. Munsiff for

3886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

declaration that Kedaran Singh be deemed as dead w.e.f.

10.9.1994 which is apparently contrary to the claim of the

Union in the preset reference which has been brought in

the year 1996.

Perused the case record, I find that the present

reference relates to an issue about the dismissal of the

workman by the Management. It also reveals that neither

the Union Representative nor the workman has appeared

since 25.5./31.5.2004 but the Management has all along

been represented. In view of the aforesaid Title Suit filed

by Smt. Phulwa Devi W/o the workman for declaration of

her husband as dead w.e.f. 10.9.1994 just two years prior

to the reference; hence the case is prima facie

unmaintainable in facts and Laws. So it is accordingly

disposed off as non-existence of the Industrial Dispute as

referred. Thus it is passed as Award accordingly.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1468-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

100@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@270@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 100/1995)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the management of M/s

BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/270/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 100 of 1995

Employers in relation to the management of

Blihari Colliery of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND.

Their workmen.

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated. 27/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/270/93-IR (C-I), dated

25/08/95, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand made by Dhanbad Colliery

Karmchari Sangh Dhanbad for regularisation of

Services of Shri Bindeshari Singh and eight others

(as per list annexed) by the management of Kachhi

Balihari Colliery under P.B. Area of BCCL is justified?

If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled?”

ANNEXURE

Sl.

Name of the workers

Address.

No.

1.

Shri Bishewar Singh

Vill- Hetampur,

P.O Sohari Bhawani,

P.S- Bedahara

Dist- Bojpur (Bihar)

2.

Sri Bindeshwari Singh

Vill-Karama Nasirganj,

P.S Goradhi,

Dist- Rohtas ( Bihar )

3.

Shri Yadunandan Prasad

Vill- Sikardiha,

P.O & P.S-Kutumbha,

Dist- Aurangabad

(Bihar)

4.

Sri Susil Kumar Mishra

Kachi Balihari

P.O- Kusunda, Dhanbad

5.

Sri Vijay Pratap Singh

Vill-Bhawpur P.O-Dovi,

Dist- Manjm (UP)

6.

Sri Lal Bahadur Pandey

Vill – Kashipur,

P.O-Bachwala,

P.S- Mehna,

Dist Ajamgarh

7.

Sri Nana Kishore Rana

Vill-Bandgaon

P.O- Narchahi,

P.S- Choparan

Dist – Hazaribagh

8.

Sri Umeshwar Singh

Vill-Bisunpura

P.S-Daroda,

Dist-Siwan, Bihar

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3887

9.

Sri Alok Chakarvorty

Vill- Birla ,

P.O- Ram Haripur

Dist- Bankura (W.B)

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

04.09.1995. After notice both parties appeared, the

Sponsoring Union/Workman files their written statement

on 29.8.1996. Thereafter the management files their written

statement –cum-rejoinder on 27.02.1997.

3.

On behalf of the workman, three witnesses have

been examined, whereas on behalf of the management,

one witness has been examined.

4.

The case of the nine workmen is that they were

rendering services to the BCCL management and were

getting wages. Though they have been rendering 240

days continuous service, they were not regularised by

the management, but the workmen similarly placed have

already been regularised in their respective posts.

5.

On the other hand, the case of the management is

the workmen were rendering services though a co-

operative society, their payment etc was made to the co-

operative society which was deposited in the bank

accounts of the workmen.

6.

The workmen denied , they were engaged through

co-operative society and says that they were working for

the management. From Ext. M-1 & M-2 it appears that

work order was issued by the BCCL management to

pragatisila Shramic Sahayog Samiti Ltd. and it was

supplying workmen and bill was paid to that society which

was working as a contractor and was supplying labour to

BCCL management.

7.

It is pertinent to extract some line of the cross

examination of Sri Bindeshwari Singh (WW.1) is quoted

below.

“ We were appointed by the labour cooperative

society. We were member of the cooperative society.

Either BCCL or Cooperative society has not issued

us any appointment letter. I am one of the member of

the cooperative society. The name of my cooperative

society was pragatisil Shramik Sahyog Samity.

8.

Therefore the workmen before this Tribunal are

simply contract workers The contract worker has no right

to be regularised, unless management accepts them and

inducted them as their workers. There is no law to

regularised them,

9.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the deemand of Dhanbad Colliery Karmchari

Sanch, Dhanbad for regularisation of Services of Shri

Bindeshari Singh and eight others ( as per list annexed)

by the management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery under

P.B.Area of BCCL is not justified and legal.. Hence he is

not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1469-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

4@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@134@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O.

1469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 4/2010) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/134/1999-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 04 OF 2010.

PARTIES : The Organizing Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

Barari Colliery of M/s BCCL,

Bhulan Barari, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/134/99-IR (C-I)

dt.18.08.1999.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/Union : Mr. N. G. Arun,

Union Representative

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D.K.Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 10th March, 2014.

3888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/134/99-IR (C-I) dt.18.08.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bararee

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Gopal Singh,

Ex-Security Guard from the services of the Company

w.e.f. 23.9.1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

2

Neither Mr.N.G.Arun, the Union Representative nor

workman Gopal Singh appeared nor any written Statement

along with the documents filed on his behalf despite last

chance. But Mr.DK.Verma,the Ld.Counsel for O.P./

Management of Barari Colliery M/s. BCCL is present.

On going through the case record, I find despite

five Regd. Notices dt. 23.2.11, 26.11., 8.11.11, 19.09.12 and

3.2.13, no written statement filed till now on behalf of the

workman. The Union Representative as well as the

workman by their conducts appears to be reluctant and

uninterested to contest the case under adjudication. Under

these circumstances, there is no scope except to close the

case as non-existent Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, an

order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1470-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 164@994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@50@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2014

S.O. 1470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 164/

1994) 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 M/s.

CCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 05/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/50/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 164 of 1994

Employers in relation to the management of

Kedla U.G Project, M/s. C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen.

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: None

For the Workman

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal.

Dated 24/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/50/1994 -IR (C-I), dt.25/27-07-

1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kedla

Under Ground Project of C.C.L. At & P.O-Kedla, Dist-

Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri Dhanu Nahak From

the services of the company w.e.f. 26.03.93 is

justified? If not , to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2.

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed, they submitted their claim statement, rejoinder

and document. The parties appearing for certain dates

and thereafter none appears from either side . Therefore it

felt that there is no dispute between the parties . Hence

“No Dispute” award is passed, communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 6 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1471-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, chbZ,e,y fy-]

caxyksj (lHkh dk;kZy;ksa) ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] fnukad 18&05&2014 ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3889

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds

v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds

fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus

dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj

gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh

fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/ dgk x;k

gS)izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh

/kjk 45 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k

dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr

vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa

dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/

ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk

jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml

vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa

vf/fu;e ds miac/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa

dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr

dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vfèkfu;e

ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds

vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh

mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds

izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa

ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr

,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujhf{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr

djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh

tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_

;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh

O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]

;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS

fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]

cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj

djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrw leqfpr

ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@13@2013&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014

S.O.

1471.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of BEML Ltd.,

Bangalore (all offices) from the operation of the said Act.

The exemption shall be effective from 18-05-2014 for a period

of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions, namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

3890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which exemption

is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to furnish to him such

information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act;

or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ;

or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

register, account book or other

document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/13/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 6 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1472-—tcfd Hkkjr gSoh bySfDVªdYl fyfeVsM

(ftls blds i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku dgk x;k gS) us minku lank;

vfèkfu;e] 1972 (1972 dk 39) (blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e

dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds varxZr NwV iznku

fd, tkus gsrq vkonsu fd;k gS %

vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj dh jk; esa] Hkkjr gSoh bySfDVªdYl

deZpkjh minku fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr ns; minku ykHkksa ds laca/

esa mDr izfr"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, ykxw gS] mDr deZpkfj;ksa

ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr iznÙk ykHkksa ls de ykHknk;d

ugha gS_

vr% vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 5 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=kky; dh fnukad

5-8-2010 dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 2134 ds Øe esa dsUæ ljdkj

mDr izfr"Bku dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu 29-11-2012 ls rhu

o"kZ dh vkSj vof/ ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds izpkyu

ls NwV iznku djrh gS_ vFkkZr~

(i) Hkkjr gSoh bySfDVªdYl deZpkjh minku fuf/ fu;eksa ds

dk;kZUo;u ds laca/ esa dksbZ fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks

mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu;a=k.k izkf/dkjh vkSj

vihyh; izkf/dkjh ds ikl mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa

ds vuqlkj gLr{ksi djus vkSj fu/kZfjr djus dh 'kfDr;ka

gksaxh_ vkSj

(ii) dsUæh; ljdkj dh fyf[kr iwokZuqefr ds fcuk Hkkjr gSoh

bySfDVªdYl fyfeVsM deZpkjh minku fuf/ esa dksbZ

ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk,xk A

[la- ,l&42014@01@2013&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3891

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014

S.O. 1472.—Whereas the Bharat Heavy Electricals

Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment)

has applied for exemption under sub-section (1) of the

Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972)

(herein after referred to as the said Act):

And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the gratuity benefit payable under the Bharat

Heavy Electricals Employees’ Gratuity Fund Rules as

applicable to the employees of the said establishment with

respect to gratuity benefits are not less favourable to the

said employees than those conferred under the said Act:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by Section 5 of the said Act, and in continuation of the

Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Labour S.O No 2134 dated 05.08.2010 the Central

Government hereby exempts the said establishment from

the operation of the provisions of the said Act for a further

period of three years with effect from 29.11.2012, subject

to the following conditions, namely:

(i) If any dispute arises with regard to the

implementation of the Bharat Heavy Electricals

Employees’ Gratuity Fund Rules, the Controlling

Authority and Appellate Authority under the said

Act shall have the power to intervene and

determine it, in accordance with the provisions of

the said act; and

(ii) No change in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Employees’ Gratuity Fund shall be made without

prior permission in writing of the Central

Government.

[No. S-42014/01/2013-SS. II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1473-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

ba'kksjUl dEiuh fy- ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV

(lanHkZ 1@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17011@19@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O.

1473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 1/2003) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of National Insurance

Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-17011/19/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 01 of 2003

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

A N D

Their workmen.

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh,

Management

Ld. Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Insurance

Dated: 26th March, 2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-17011/19/2002-IR(B-II) dated

29.11.2002 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 any employer-employee relationship

exists between the management of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. (NICL), Kolkata and the six

disputants viz. S/Shri Somnath Sen, Raju Guchhayat,

Smt. Sumitri Rout, Biswanath Routh, Swapan Middya

and Debasish Mitra? If so, whether their claim for

absorption in the service of NICL is legal and justified

and what relief are they entitled to?”

2.

When the case is taken up for hearing today, the

management is represented by its Ld. Counsel, Mr. Dipak

Kumar Ghosh. None appears on behalf of the workmen.

No witness for the workmen is also present. It appears

from the records that the union was given opportunities

to appear before the Tribunal for giving evidence; but

inspite of getting such opportunities it has not turned up

on consecutive two days. Ld. Counsel for the management

submits that since the workmen union is not coming

forward to prove its case, management has nothing to

answer and the present reference may be disposed of.

3892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

The above facts and circumstances go to show that

the workmen union is not at all interested to proceed with

the reference case further. Perhaps the dispute between

the parties does not exist at present.

4.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, this

Tribunal has neither any scope nor any reason to proceed

with the case further. Accordingly, the present reference

is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 26th March, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1474-—vkS|ksfxd vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy cSad

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ 1@2008) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&39025@1@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 01/2008 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-39025/1/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Misc. Application No. 01 of 2008

U/S. 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947

(Arising out of Reference No. 31 of 2007)

Parties : Shri Biswanath Paik,

Part Time Sweeper,

C/o. Punjab National Bank,

Dhukri Jhora Branch,

P.O. Sadhurhat,

Dist. 24 Parganas (N),

West Bengal - 743304

…. Applicant

Vs.

1. The Chief Manager,

Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office,

Appejay House, 4th Floor,

15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700016.

2. The Senior Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

AG Towers, 3rd Floor,

125/1, Park Street,

Kolkata – 700001.

…. Opp. Parties

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the applicant

: None

On behalf of the Opp. Parties

: None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated: 21st March, 2014.

AWARD

This is an application under Section 33A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by one Shri Biswanath

Paik/Complainant alleging violation of the provision of

Section 33 of the said Act against the Opp. Parties/

management/Punjab National Bank.

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the Applicant inspite of service of

notice. It appears from the record that on the last three

consecutive dates none also appeared on behalf of the

Applicant. From the above conduct of the Applicant it

appears that now he is not at all interested to proceed with

the instant application. Perhaps his grievance has already

been settled amicably.

Considering the above facts and circumstances,

instant application under Section 33A of the Act is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1475-—vkS|ksfxd vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ bafM;k

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ 24@2000)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@41@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 24/2000) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3893

dispute between the management of Bank of India, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/

05/2014.

[No. L-12012/41/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 24 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bank of India

A N D

Their workmen

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated: 3rd April, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-12012/41/2000/IR(B-II) dated

17.07.2000 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 Bank of

India in imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement on Shri Tuhinendu Pramanick w.e.f.

18.10.1998 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is

Shri Pramanick entitled?”

2.

None appears on behalf of either of the parties when

the case is taken up for hearing today. The union is found

absent on last three consecutive dates inspite of service

of notice. The above facts and circumstances go to show

that the union is reluctant to proceed with the case further.

Perhaps the dispute between the parties has already been

settled amicably. Considering the above, this Tribunal does

not want to drag the present reference case further.

3.

Accordingly, the instant reference is disposed of by

passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Kolkata,

3rd April, 2014

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1476-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

cM+kSnk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (20@2003) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@239@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2003) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

08/05/2014.

[No. L-12011/239/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bank of Baroda

AND

Their workmen

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated: 1st April, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/239/2002-IR(B-II) dated

12.09.2003 and corrigendum of even number dated 12th

December, 2003 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 Bank of

Baroda in abolishing the post of Head Peons in

certain branches in the State of West Bengal and

withdrawal of Head Peon allowance drawn by the

incumbents without compliance of Section 9-A of

the ID Act is justified? If not, what relief are the

workmen concerned represented by the unions

entitled to?”

2.

None appears on behalf of any of the parties when

the case is taken up for hearing today. It appears from the

3894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

record that notices have been served upon both the unions

and also upon the management; but inspite of the same

none appears on two consecutive dates. The instant

reference has been made on the basis of the industrial

dispute raised by the said unions. But, from the facts and

circumstances and the conduct of the unions it is evident

that they are at present not interested to proceed with the

case further. Perhaps the dispute between the parties has

been amicably settled. Considering the above facts and

circumstances, this Tribunal finds no reason to drag this

case any further.

3.

Accordingly, the instant reference is disposed of by

passing a “No Dispute Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Kolkata,

1st April, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1477-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ 17@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@9@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O.

1477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2003) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-12011/9/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 17 of 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Central Bank of India

A N D

Their workmen

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the : None

Management

On behalf of the : Mr. Shyamaprasad Bhattacharjee,

Workmen

President of the union.

State: West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated: 27th March, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/9/2003-IR(B-II) dated

16.04.2003 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 Central

Bank of India by providing CTO allowance to the

three junior telex operator instead of senior telex

operator who are available in Calcutta Metropolitan

Region, violating the promotion policy agreement

dated 29.5.2000 is justified? If not, what relief the

three concerned workmen are entitled to?”

2.

When the case is taken up today for hearing, an

application is filed by the union informing that the matter

has been amicably settled between the parties and the

union has no grievance against the management and as

such the union does not want to proceed with the case

further. Accordingly, it is prayed that necessary order may

be passed.

3.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and

since the union has no grievance against the management

as the matter has already been settled between the parties,

this Tribunal has no reason to drag the case further.

4.

Accordingly, the instant reference is disposed of by

passing “No Dispute Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

27th March, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1478-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydkrk

iÙku U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 47@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&32011@8@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3895

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O.

1478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-32011/8/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 47 of 2005

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Kolkata Port Trust

A N D

Their workmen.

Present :

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

: Mr. Gautam Mukhopadhyay,

Management

Industrial Relations Officer.

On behalf of the

: None

Workmen

State : West Bengal.

Industry: Port & Dock.

Dated: 26th March, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-32011/8/2005-IR(B-II) dated

11.11.2005 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 Kolkata

Port Trust (1) in denying either to give compensatory

off to Security Guards immediately after having

engaged them on paid holiday or to pay them full

holiday allowance @ 1-1/2 days extra wages as per

the terms of bipartite settlement dated 11.4.84 in

cases compensatory off does not become feasible

immediately or at least with a month and (2) allowing

the compensatory off to accumulate in lieu of several

consecutive holidays for an indefinite period even

to the extent of 7-8 months and sanctioning them

thereafter against the will of the individual guard

are justified and legal? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled?”

2.

When the case is taken up for hearing today, the

management is represented by its authorized

representative, Mr. Gautam Mukhopadhyay. None appears

on behalf of the workmen. No witness for the workmen is

also present. It appears from the records that the union

was given opportunities to appear before the Tribunal for

giving evidence; but inspite of getting such opportunities

it has not turned up on consecutive two days. Authorized

representative of the management submits that since the

workmen union is not coming forward to prove its case,

management has nothing to answer and the present

reference may be disposed of.

3.

The above facts and circumstances go to show that

the workmen union is not at all interested to proceed with

the reference case further. Perhaps the dispute between

the parties does not exist at present.

4.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, this

Tribunal has neither any scope nor any reason to proceed

with the case further. Accordingly, the present reference

is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 26th March, 2014.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1479-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydkrk

iÙku U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&32012@7@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.17/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-32012/7/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 17 of 2005

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Kolkata Port Trust

A N D

Their workmen

3896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State : West Bengal

Industry: Port & Dock.

Dated : 22nd April, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-32012/7/2004-IR(B-II) dated

28.04.2005 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 Kolkata

Port Trust in awarding punishment of reducing pay

by three stages for a period of three years with

cumulative effect and not allowing to draw increment

for the above period in respect of Shri Hirday Nand

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

concerned workman is entitled?”

2.

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears from

the record that on the last date, i.e., on 13.01.2004 none

appeared on behalf of the union which espoused the cause

of the workman inspite of service of notice. From the above

conduct of the union it may reasonably be presumed that

the union/workman is not interested to proceed with the

instant reference case. Perhaps the workman has no

grievance against the management at present.

3.

Considering the above facts and circumstances,

instant reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute

Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 22nd April, 2014.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1480-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV cSad

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 267@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@90@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 267/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the management of

Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-12012/90/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR.R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No. 267/2011

Shri Rajinder Singh

S/o Shri Dharam Singh,

Village & Post Office Kaulashi,

Distt. Jhajjar Haryana.

.....Workman

Versus

The Asst. General Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Personnel Deptt.

Sarojini House, 6-Bhagwan Dass Road,

New Delhi-110001.

.....Management

AWARD

Shri Udayveer Singh, an employee of Ministry of

Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New

Delhi, was maintaining a savings bank account No.2469 at

Transport Bhawan branch of Syndicate Bank (hereinafter

referred to as the bank). He became familiar with Shri

Rajinder Singh, who was working as an attender in the

aforesaid branch of the bank. On 22.07.2002, at 9.30 a.m.

Shri Udayveer Singh met Shri Rajinder Singh and handed

over a sum of Rs.5,000.00 to the latter for getting the amount

deposited in his savings bank account, since the former

had to leave for some other urgent work. Instead of

depositing the money in the account of Shir Udayveer

Singh, the claimant deposited a sum of Rs.4,000.00 in

Current Account No.3923, maintained in the name of

M/s. K.S. Enterprises by one Shri Som Prakash, since he

had misappropriated a sum of Rs.4000.00, out of an amount

of Rs.8000 handed over to him by Shri Kulbhushan S/o

Shri Som Prakash on 14/15.07.2002 for depositing in that

account. When Shri Udayveer approached him at about

2 p.m. that day, he assured him that the money would be

deposited in his account that very day. Despite that

assurance, the claimant opted not to deposit the money in

the account of Shri Udayveer Singh. Instead of being

present for his duties in the branch, the claimant left for

his native village. Thereafter, he did not report for his

duties till 03.08.2002. On 03.08.2002 he submitted an

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3897

application for medical leave, which was granted by the

bank.

2.

When money was not deposited by the claimant in

the account of Shri Udayveer Singh, the latter made

complaints to the bank on 22.07.2002 and 23/26.07.2002.

Explanation of the claimant was called, but found not to

be satisfactory. He was placed under suspension. Charge

sheet was served upon him. A domestic enquiry was

constituted against the claimant. The Enquiry Officer

submitted his report, wherein he reached a conclusion to

the effect that the claimant was guilty of the charges. The

Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer and awarded punishment of compulsory

retirement from services to the claimant, vide order dated

09.10.2003. Appeal preferred by the claimant also came to

be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the

Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority,

the claimant raised an industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. Since the bank contested the claim,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, so submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No.2, New Delhi, for adjudication, vide order No.L-12012/

90/2005-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated 07.11.2005, with following

terms:

“Whether termination of Shri Rajinder Singh from

management of Syndicate Bank by way of

compulsory retirement from service vide order dated

09.10.2003 is just, fair and legal and if not, what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Rajinder Singh pleading

therein that he joined the bank on 12.02.1978 as an attender

at its Kasturba Gandhi Marg branch. In 1991, he was

transferred to Transport Bhawan branch, New Delhi, where

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is housed.

Since the bank did not have its own canteen, the bank

employees use canteen services belonging to the Ministry.

He befriended Shri Udayveer Singh, cashier at the canteen.

On 22.07.2002, Shri Udayveer Singh approached him at

9.15 a.m. with a request to arrange for a bundle of new

currency notes of Rs.50 in denomination and handed him

cash of Rs.500.00 for that purpose. He went to Reserve

Bank of India and requested Shri Krishna Dutt, the cashier,

to exchange the money for a new bundle of currency notes

of Rs.50 in denomination. Suddenly, he suffered severe

stomachache, boarded an autorickshaw and went home.

He remained on leave from 22.07.2002 to 02.08.2002. Fresh

packet of Rs.50 in denomination was handed over to

Shri Udayveer Singh at his residence on 27.02.2003. Public

generally ask the bank staff to arrange for fresh currency

notes and the staff oblige them. He was, however, placed

under suspension on 07.08.2002 on allegation of

misappropriation of Rs.5000.00, handed over to him by

Shri Udayveer Singh for deposit in his saving bank

account. It was also alleged that out of Rs.5000, handed

over to him by Shri Udayveer, he deposited an amount of

Rs.4000.00 in Current account No.3923 of M/s. K.S.

Enterprises. An enquiry was constituted in the matter.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings concluding

that the charges have been established against him. On

consideration of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary

Authority awarded punishment of ‘compulsory retirement

from the service. Period of suspension was treated as not

spent on duty and thereby pay for that period has been

denied.’ Appeal preferred by him against the orders of the

Disciplinary Authority also came to be dismissed. He was

punished for an act which does not constitute misconduct,

as enumerated in the Bipartite Settlement(s). The bank

has no legal authority to take disciplinary action for acts

of misconduct committed outside duty place and beyond

duty hours, since the transaction took place outside the

bank premises and beyond duty hours. The action of the

bank is improper, illegal, unjustified and unwarranted,

besides being disproportionate to the gravity of charges.

He claims reinstatement in service of the bank with full

back wages and all consequential benefits.

4.

Claim was resisted by the bank pleading that it has

been made in a routine and mechanical manner after a gap

of about 2½ years, as an afterthought to drag the bank

into unnecessary litigation. Shri Udayveer Singh, holder

of SB Account No. 2469 with the bank, approached the

claimant on 22.7.2002 before commencement of banking

hours for deposit of Rs.5000.00. Since he was in a hurry

and assured by the claimant that the money would be

deposited in the account, he handed over Rs.5000.00 to

the claimant. When he returned to the bank at about

1.30 p.m. to enquire about deposit of the amount, the

claimant assured him that the money would be deposited

immediately. However, the claimant failed to deposit the

amount in the account of Shri Udayveer and left the branch

abruptly. Complaint was lodged by the customer on

22.07.2002 and 26/28.07.2002. The money was returned to

the customer thereafter after much persuasion. The

claimant also accepted an amount of Rs.8000.00 on

15.07.2002 towards deposit in Current Account No.3923

of M/s. K.S. Enterprises but deposited only Rs.4000.00 on

18.07.2002 and balance amount was deposited by him only

on 22.07.2002 after persuasion by the customer/his son,

out of the amount of Rs.5000.00 which was received from

Shri Udayveer.

5.

Charge sheet dated 14.11.2002 was served on the

claimant. Reply, submitted by the claimant, was found not

to be satisfactory. Hence, a domestic enquiry was

constituted. The claimant participated in the enquiry, where

he was defended by a defence representative. He was

given all fair and reasonable opportunities to defend

himself, which opportunities were utilized by him. Enquiry

was conducted as per provisions of the Bipartite

3898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Settlements and principles of natural justice. After

conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted

his report dated 25.07.2003 to the Disciplinary Authority.

The claimant was also given an opportunity to make his

submissions on the Enquiry Report. The Disciplinary

Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry

Officer and proposed punishment of compulsory

retirement. Personal hearing was given to the claimant on

the proposed punishment. Since the claimant has become

undependable and unreliable, he could not be retained in

service of the bank. The Disciplinary Authority, after going

through the case in entirety, confirmed punishment

proposed, vide order dated 9th October, 2013. Appeal

preferred by him also came to be dismissed. The bank

asserts that punishment of compulsory retirement awarded

to the claimant, commensurate to his misconduct. It is

claimed that the claim statement may be discarded and an

award be passed in favour of the bank.

6.

On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled by my learned predecessor:

(i)

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted in this

case is legal, just and fair and is not in violation of

the principles of natural justice? If not, what

directions are called for in this case?

(ii)

As per reference sent by the Government of India in

this case.

(iii)

Relief.

7.

Issue No.(i) was treated as preliminary issue.

8.

Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New Delhi

dated 30.03.2011, case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudication by the appropriate Government.

9.

Shri Shankar Lal was examined by the bank to

discharge onus resting on it. Claimant entered the witness

box to fend his claim. No other witness was examined by

the parties on the preliminary issue.

10.

On hearing the parties and appreciation of ocular as

well as documentary evidence, issue No.(1) was answered

in favour of the claimant and against the bank, vide order

dated 12.01.2012.

11.

To prove misconduct of the claimant, Shri K.A.

Seetaram, Senior Manager, Shri Kulbhushan, Shri Suresh

Kumar and Shri N.L. Khanna, Chief Manager, were

examined by the bank. To rebut evidence adduced by the

bank, claimant entered the witness box again and testified

facts. He also examined Shri Jai Bhagwan and Shri Bhim

Singh Sharma, in support of his defence. No other witness

was examined by either of the parties.

12.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Om Prakash

Sharma, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri Rajesh Mahindru, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the bank.

I have given my careful considerations to arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records.

My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as

follows:

Issue No. 2

13.

Shri K.A. Seetaram unfolds in his affidavit Ex.MW2/

A, tendered as evidence, that on 22.07.2002 as well as on

23/26.07.2002 complaints were made by Shri Udayveer

Singh alleging therein that on 22.07.2002 at about 9.30

a.m., he handed over a sum of Rs.5000.00 to the claimant

on assurance that he would deposit that amount in his

saving bank account No.2469, being maintained at

Transport Bhawan branch of the bank. He further detailed

therein that after sometime, he enquired from the claimant

as to whether money, handed over to him for deposit in

his account, had been deposited therein. At that juncture,

the claimant told that he would attend to him after some

time. Subsequently, on enquiry, it was revealed that he

had not deposited that amount in his account and as such,

he made a complaint against him in that regard. Copy of

complaint dated 22.07.2002 is Ex.MW1/9 (inadvertently

this document has been exhibited as Ex.MW1/2). Copy of

complaint dated 23/26.07.2002 is Ex.MW1/10

(inadvertently this document has been exhibited as

Ex.MW1/3). On this complaint, the Branch Manager

addressed a letter to Zonal Office on 27.07.2002, copy of

which is Ex.MW1/11 (inadvertently, this document has

been exhibited as Ex.MW1/4). The witness went on to

depose that Shri Udayveer Singh reaffirmed facts detailed

in the complaints before him, when he came to investigate

the matter.

14.

In his affidavit Ex.WW1/B, claimant projects facts

in a different manner. According to him, on 22.07.2002 at

about 9.15 a.m., Shri Udayveer Singh met him near entrance

of the branch and asked for two packets of currency notes

of Rs.5 and Rs.50 in denomination. He handed over a sum

of Rs.5000.00 to him for that purpose, in presence of

Shri Jai Bhagwan, Security Guard. The claimant was having

a packet of Rs.5, which was handed over by him to

Shri Udayveer Singh. He informed Shri Udayveer Singh

that packet of Rs.50 in denomination would be handed

over to him after arranging it from Reserve Bank of India.

Thereafter, he went to Reserve Bank of India and met Shri

Krishan Dutt for arranging a new bundle of currency notes

and handed over Rs.5000.00 to him. At around 10 a.m., he

took tea and bread pakora in the canteen, alongwith

Shri Krishan Dutt. After some time he felt uneasy and

Shri Krishan Dutt arranged for some medicines for him.

Since he could not get any relief, Shri Krishan Dutt

arranged for an autorickshaw and he left for his native

village. He sought treatment and sent application for

medical leave. During his illness, Shir Krishan Dutt

approached him and handed over packet of new currency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3899

notes of Rs.50 in denomination. He came to know from

Shri Jai Bhagwan that Shri Udayveer Singh had filed a

complaint against him. He visited house of Shri Udayveer

Singh, alongwith Shri Jai Bhagwan and handed over

bundle of currency notes of Rs.50 in denomination. At

that juncture, Shri Udayveer Singh felt sorry for making a

complaint against him.

15.

Facts unfolded by Shri K.A. Seetaram and those

detailed by the claimant were assessed on acid test of

ordinary human behavior. It came to light that story put

forth by the claimant is farther from the truth. In his cross

examination, the claimant detailed that on 22.07.2002, he

left home in morning hours but did not attend to his duties.

However, in Ex.WW1/1A, he made a discrepant story to

the effect that he left his village to seek medical advice

and treatment for his sickness. He emphasized that he

made a visit to the branch on 22.07.2002 for a short while.

Since he could not get treatment from hospital, he decided

to avail medical facility from a place near to his residence.

He declares that he had not come to Delhi on 22.07.2002

with an intention to report for his duties. As projected

above the claimant attempts to blow hot and cold in the

same breath as to the purpose for which he started from

his residence on 22.7.2002.

16.

Native village of the claimant is at a distance of

35-40 kms. from Reserve Bank of India, as unfolded by him

in his cross examination dated 13.09.2012. He wants to put

forth a story in Ex.WW1/1A that on 22.07.2002, he left his

native village to get medical advice and treatment from a

hospital for his illness. However, he nowhere declares as

to what ailment he was suffering from that day. He hastens

to add that since he could not get medical facility here in

Delhi, he decided to get it at a place near his native village.

A man who services here in Delhi leaves his native place

for medical treatment but claims to have taken his inward

journey to seek medical treatment near his residence.

Without letting anyone know about his ailment, the

claimant wants this Tribunal to believe the story put

forward by him. A person suffering from ailment would go

to a hospital/dispensary instead of approaching Transport

Bhawan branch of the bank. No iota of truth is found in

the story put forward by the claimant.

17.

As detailed by him, the claimant met Shri Udayveer

Singh at a place in front of Transport Bhawan branch of

the bank. Shri Udayveer Singh handed over a sum of

Rs.5000.00 for getting wads of new currency notes, the

claimant deposes. In case the claimant was unwell, one

cannot understand as to why he owed the responsibility.

As per his version, he left for Reserve Bank of India

immediately, which deposition is also found to be

unworthy of credence. In Reserve Bank of India, he claims

to have met Shri Krishan Dutt, to whom he handed over a

sum of Rs.5000.00. When the claimant was unwell, there

was hardly an occasion for him to consume tea and bread

pakora in the canteen. However, he wants this Tribunal to

believe that on consumption of tea and bread pakora, he

felt uneasy, which state of body made him to leave for his

native village. His version is found to be contrary to

ordinary human behavior, hence cannot be accepted. Out

of facts detailed by the claimant one cannot draw any

justification in his act of leaving for the Reserve Bank of

India instead of going to a hospital/dispensary or reporting

for his duties. Facts in totality project that the claimant is

attempting to catch at a straw.

18.

In Ex.WW1/1A, claimant details that he had not taken

any money from Shri Udayveer Singh for depositing the

same in his saving bank account. An eerie silence has

been maintained by the claimant in Ex.WW1/1A relating

to payment of Rs.5000 to him by Shri Udayveer Singh on

22.07.2002. His denial, as referred above, would make an

ordinary prudent man to believe that the claimant asserts

that Shri Udayveer Singh had not handed over any money

to him on 22.07.2002. He tried to turn cat in pan by swearing

fact in his affidavit Ex.WW1/B to the effect that

Shri Udayveer Singh had given him a sum of Rs.5000.00

for exchange of bundles of new currency notes of Rs.5

and Rs.50 in denomination. How he could give bundles of

currency notes, one of Rs.5 and other of Rs.50 in

denomination, has not been explained. Hollowness of the

story is apparent out of above facts. An ordinary prudent

man would conclude that gradually the claimant attempted

to improve facts from those which were detailed by him in

Ex.WW1/1A.

19.

As claimed by the claimant, Shri Udayveer Singh

paid Rs.5000.00 for getting new bundles of currency notes

of Rs.5 and Rs.50 in denomination. According to him, new

bundle of currency notes of Rs.50 in denomination was

not available in Transport Bhawan branch of the bank.

Surprisingly, he made efforts to arrange a new bundle of

currency notes from Reserve Bank of India, without

explaining as to why he had not enquired from the cashier

about availability of a new bundle of currency notes in the

branch. When claimant left for Reserve Bank of India, he

was hale and hearty, as per his version in Ex.WW1/B.

Instead of entering his place of duty and marking his

presence in attendance register, he claims to have left for

Reserve Bank of India. This conduct of the claimant is not

worthy of credence. A man who had travelled for about 40

kms. to report for duty would enter his office and mark his

attendance first. These events make me to comment that

deposition, to the effect that new bundle of currency note

was not available in Transport Bhawan branch of the bank

hence he left for Reserve Bank of India, is a catchpenny.

3900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

Claimant reached Reserve Bank of India and paid a

sum of Rs.5000.00 to Shri Krishan Dutt, as deposed by

him. Instead of exchanging Rs.5000.00 for new bundle of

currency notes of Rs.50 in denomination, claimant goes to

the canteen to consume tea and bread pakoras. On

consumption of said foodstuff, he felt uneasiness, as

deposed by him. It is hard to believe that on consumption

of tea and bread pakoras, claimant felt sickness immediately

and that too severe in nature. As testified by him, he

opted to leave for his native village. He nowhere explains

as to what persuaded him for not reporting to the branch

and asking his colleagues for help. He travelled 40 kms.

without any deterioration of his health status. These facts

make it apparent that story of consumption of tea and

bread pakoras and deterioration of his health is nothing

but a pigment of sheer lie.

21.

Claimant came to know that Shri Udayveer Singh

had made a complaint against him in the branch on

22.07.2002. Ex.MW1/2 is the complaint made by

Shri Udayveer Singh on 22.07.2002, contents of which make

it apparent that he gave a sum of Rs.5000.00 to the claimant,

alongwith with a filled in slip for getting that amount

deposited in his saving bank account No.2469. Since

Shri Udayveer Singh had to go to deposit telephone bill,

he handed over above amount of money, alongwith a slip

to the claimant for depositing it in his account. It has

further been detailed therein that the claimant opted not

to deposit that amount and left for his home. Thus, contents

of Ex.MW1/2 make it clear that a sum of Rs.5000.00 was

given to the claimant for getting it deposited in the account

of the complainant. Instead of depositing that money,

claimant left for his house and made Shri Udayveer felt

cheated. Ex.MW1/3 reaffirms these very facts, which are

detailed in Ex.MW1/2. Complainant details therein that

the claimant misrepresented to him about deposit of money

in his saving bank account and went missing around 2

p.m. No efforts were made by the claimant to explain as to

why Udayveer made complaints against him. Udayveer

was not inimical qua him, having motive to wish him harm.

Out of these facts, it is evident that Shri Udayveer Singh

had paid money to the claimant for getting it deposited in

his bank account. The claimant misappropriated Rs.5000.00,

paid to him by Shri Udayveer Singh for depositing in his

saving bank account and misrepresented facts to the

complainant, when he met him again in the branch.

22.

Shri Kulbhushan unfolds that his father, namely,

Shri Som Prakash was maintaining current account No.3923

in the name of M/s. K.S. Enterprises in Transport Bhawan

branch of the bank. Shri Kulbhushan remained posted in

that branch from February 1994 till March 2000. He was

transferred to Hauz Khas branch in 2000 and working there

in the said branch in July 2002. He narrates that at times he

used to hand over money to his colleagues as well as the

claimant for getting it deposited in the aforesaid account.

On 14/15.07.2002, he handed over a sum of Rs.8000.00 to

the claimant for depositing the amount in the account,

referred above. Claimant had not deposited that money in

the account. When he pursued the matter, claimant

deposited sum of Rs.4000.00 in that account on 18.07.2002.

On 22.07.2002, he talked to the Branch Manager and

enquired from him as to whether balance amount of

Rs.4000.00 was deposited by the claimant in the account,

being maintained by his father. Thereafter, on the same

day, remaining amount of Rs.4000.00 was deposited by

the claimant in current account No.3923. He made a

statement in that regard before the Enquiry officer, which

is Ex.MW1/24 (inadvertently, this document has been

exhibited as Ex.MW1/17). During course of cross

examination of the witness, the claimant could not dispel

above facts.

23.

Shri Suresh Kumar gives reaffirmation to the facts

unfolded by Shri Kulbhushan. In his affidavit Ex.MW4/A,

Shri Suresh Kumar makes it apparent that on 22.07.2002

Shri Kulbhushan enquired from him as to whether a sum

of Rs.4000.00 had been deposited in account No.3923

being maintained in the name of M/s. K.S. Enterprises. At

that time, claimant requested him to prepare credit voucher

for Rs.4000.00, which is Ex.MW1/14. However, claimant

had not signed it. A sum of Rs.4000.00 was deposited on

the strength of this voucher by the claimant in the account

of M/s K.S, Enterprises.

24.

As projected above, the claimant made an effort to

forge a story of payment of Rs.5000.00 to him by Shri

Udayveer Singh for exchange of new bundles of currency

notes in denomination of Rs.5 and Rs.50. To substantiate

these facts, he brought Shri Jai Bhagwan and Shri Bhim

Singh Sharma in the witness box. Shri Jai Bhagwan admits

that on 22.07.2002 claimant had not approached him. From

these facts, claim put forward to the effect that a sum of

Rs.5000.00 was paid by Shri Udayveer Singh to the claimant

for exchange of new currency notes in presence of Shri Jai

Bhagwan has been belied. Shri Bhim Singh Sharma explains

that on 23.07.2002, Shri Krishan Dutt visited the Transport

Bhawan branch of the bank and informed the Chief Manger

about ill health of the claimant. However, he concedes

that Shri Krishan Dutt testified before the Enquiry Officer

that he had not visited Transport Bhawan branch of the

bank on 23.07.2002. From these facts, it is apparent that

Shri Bhim Singh Sharma admits that Shir Krishan Dutt

made a claim before the authorities that on 23.7.2002 he

had not visited Transport Bhawan branch of the Bank.

Shri Bhim Singh Sharma could not project that the claim,

so made by Shri Krishan Dutt, is false. These reasons

constrain me to discard facts unfolded by the claimant,

Shri Jai Bhagwan as well as Shri Bhim Singh Sharma.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3901

25.

The bank has been able to establish that on

14/15.02.2002, Shri Kulbhushan paid a sum of Rs.8000.00

to the claimant for getting it deposited in Current Account

No.3923 being maintained by his father, in the name of

M/s. K.S. Enterprises. Claimant opted not to deposit that

amount in the said account that day. However, on

persuasion, he deposited a sum of Rs.4000.00 in that

account on 18.07.2002. On 22.02.2002, Shri Kulbhushan

asked the Branch Manager and when the Branch Manager

talked to the claimant in that regard, he deposited a sum of

Rs. 4000.00 in the aforesaid current account on 22.07.2002,

out of Rs. 5000.00 received by him from Shri Udayveer

Singh. He misappropriated Rs.5000.00 paid to him by Shri

Udayveer Singh for getting it deposited in his saving bank

account No. 2469. Shri Udayveer Singh made complaints

in that regard. Subsequently, the claimant paid Rs. 5000.00

to him. Thus, it is apparent that the bank had been able to

establish misconduct of misappropriation of money and

converting it to his own use by the claimant for a short

period.

26.

In his claim statement, claimant projects that

misconduct alleged against him was committed by him

outside the premises of the bank and beyond his duty

hours. According to him, the bank was not competent to

charge sheet and proceed with a domestic action. He claims

that these facts make it apparent that domestic action was

not within competence of the bank and punishment

awarded to him does not come into play. For an answer to

this proposition, it would be expedient to note as to what

the term ‘misconduct’ means. The concept of misconduct

is a general concept and is not related to the relationship

of master and servant only. The dictionary meaning of the

word “misconduct” are : “improper behaviour, intentional

wrong doing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard

of behaviour”. Misconduct is a transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, where no discretion

is left except what necessity may demand; it is violation of

definite law, a forbidden act and differs from carelessness.

It comprises of positive acts and not mere neglect or failure.

Under Indian Penal Code and other special and local laws

some acts or omissions are offences for which a person

can be punished by the sovereign power of the State.

These offences or acts are considered to be prejudicial to

the interest of the society in general and, therefore, they

are prohibited by law. There are, however, various other

organizations such as professional bodies, educational

institutions, clubs, corporations etc. and any one who

wants to be admitted to such bodies, by being member or

otherwise, is also required to act under certain rules and

remain subject to certain discipline. If he does anything in

violation of rules, regulations, or any law inconsistent

with his position as a member of that society, then he is

liable to lose the advantage and facilities of the association

with that society or organization. Any such act is, therefore,

generally called a misconduct. Primary meaning of word

“misconduct” is bad management, mis-management and

malfeasance or culpable neglect of an official in regard to

his office. Both in law and in ordinary speech the term

misconduct usually implies an act done willfully with a

wrong intention and as applied to professional acts, even

though such acts are not inherently wrongful, it means

also a dereliction of or deviation from duty. Even assuming

that a particular act is negligence and not misconduct,

such a negligence which amounts to dereliction of or

deviation from duty cannot be excused. See In re Mahboob

Alikhan (AIR 1958 A.P. 116).

27.

In N.M. Roshan Umar Karim & Co. (AIR 1936 Mad.

508) following three different meaning of the word

“misconduct” were given:

“(a) Misconduct is not established by proving

even culpable negligence. It is something opposed

to accident or negligence and is doing of something

which the doer knows to be wrong or which he does

recklessly not caring what the result would be.

(b) Misconduct is distinguished from accident and

is not far from negligence – not only gross and

culpable negligence, and involves that a person

misconducts himself when it is wrong conduct on

his part in the existing circumstances to do or to fail

or omit to do a particular thing or to persist in the

act, failure or omission or acting with carelessness.

It is incorrect that misconduct only refers to acts of

gross or culpable negligence and not mere

negligence.

(c) Misconduct does not ordinarily covers acts of

negligence. The test of misconduct is not what a

reasonable man would have done in the

circumstances. It means that servant is guilty of

something which was inconsistent with the conduct

expected of him by the rules of the company”.

28.

Above three meanings were quoted by the Apex

Court with approval in Shiv Nath (AIR 1965 SC 1666).

Whether mere negligence is a misconduct or not will

depend upon the nature of negligence and the requirement

of care which the employee was obliged to use on the

nature of services he was expected to perform. Misconduct

could be three kinds: (i) technical misconduct which leaves

no trial of indiscipline (ii) misconduct resulting in damage

to the employer’s property which might be compensated

by forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof, and (iii) serious

misconduct such as acts of violence against the

management or other employee or riotous or disorderly

behaviour in or near the place of employment, which

though not directly causing damage, is conducive to grave

indiscipline.

3902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.

The expression “misconduct” has not been defined

either in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the

Act) or in the Industrial Employment (standing Orders)

Act, 1946. In Ram Singh (1992 Lab. I.C. 2391) the Apex

Court observed that though the expression is “not capable

of precise definition, its reflection receives its connotation

from the context, the delinquency in its performance and

its effect on the discipline and the nature of duty. It may

involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong

behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character,

forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite

rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of

judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of

duty, the act complained of bears forbidden quality or

character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to

the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs,

regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public

purpose it seeks to serve”. In industrial law, the word

“misconduct” has acquired a specific connotation. In

Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (1953 L.A.C. 584) the Labour

Appellate Tribunal laid down the criteria for determination

as to whether an act would be misconduct, viz. the act (i)

is inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied

conditions of service, or (ii) is directly linked with the

general relationship of employer and employee, or (iii) has

a direct connection with the contentment or comfort of

the men at work, or (iv) has a material bearing, on the

smooth and efficient working of the concern. If the answer

to any of these criteria is in affirmative, the act in question

would amount to an act of misconduct. In industrial law

there are two kinds of misconduct, namely, (I) gross or

major misconduct which justify punishment of dismissal

or discharge, and (II) minor misconduct which do not justify

punishment of dismissal or discharge but may call for lesser

punishment. See Caltex India Ltd. [1966 (2) LLJ 137].

30.

Para 521.4 of the Shastri Award defines “gross

misconduct” on the part of an employee as follows:

“521.4

By the expression “gross misconduct”

shall be meant any of the following acts and

omissions on the part of an employee;

(a)

engaging in any trade or business outside the scope

of his duties except with the permission of the bank;

(b)

unauthorized disclosure of information regarding the

affairs of the bank or any of its customers or any

other person connected with the business of the

bank which is confidential or the disclosure of which

is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the bank;

(c)

drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent

behavior on the premises of the bank;

(d)

willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the

property of the bank or any of its customers;

(e)

willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful

and reasonable order of the management or of a

superior;

(f)

habitual doing of any act which amounts to “ minor

misconduct” as defined below, “habitual” meaning

a course of action taken or persisted in

notwithstanding that at least on three previous

occasions censure or warnings have been

administered or an adverse remark has been entered

against him;

(g)

willful slowing down in performance of work;

(h)

gambling or betting on the premises of the bank;

(i)

speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any

commodity, whether on his account or that of any

other persons;

(j)

doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the bank,

or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the bank in serious loss;

(k)

giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from

a customer or an employee of the bank;

(l)

abetment or instigation of any of the acts or

omissions above mentioned”.

31.

Definition of “gross misconduct” was modified time

and again and it was lastly modified by para (5) of bipartite

settlement dated 10.4.2002 as follows:

“(5) By the expression “gross misconduct” shall be

meant any of the following acts and omissions on

the part of an employee:

(a)

engaging in any trade or business outside the scope

of his duties except with the written permission of

the bank;

(b)

unauthorized disclosure of information regarding the

affairs of the bank or any of its customers or any

other person connected with the business of the

bank which is confidential or the disclosure of which

is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the bank;

(c)

drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent

behavior on the premises of the bank;

(d)

willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the

property of the bank or any of its customers;

(e)

willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful

and reasonable order of the management or of a

superior;

(f)

habitual doing of any act which amounts to “minor

misconduct” as defined below, “habitual” meaning

a course of action taken or persisted in,

notwithstanding that at least on three previous

occasions censure or warnings have been

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3903

administered or an adverse remark has been entered

against him;

(g)

willful slowing down in performance of work;

(h)

gambling or betting on the premises of the bank;

(i)

speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any

commodity whether on his account or that of any

other persons;

(j)

doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the bank in serious loss;

(k)

giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from a

customer or an employee of the bank;

(l)

abetment or instigation of any of the acts or omission

above mentioned;

(m)

knowingly making a false statement in any document

pertaining to or in connection with his employment

in the bank;

(n)

resorting to unfair practice of any nature whatsoever

in any examination conducted by the Indian Institute

of Bankers or by or on behalf of the bank and where

the employee is caught in the act of resorting to

such unfair practice and a report to that effect has

been received by the bank from the concerned

authority;

(o)

resorting to unfair practice of any nature whatsoever

in any examination conducted by the Indian Institute

of Bankers or by or on behalf of the bank in cases

not covered by the above Sub-Clause (n) and where

a report to that effect has been received by the bank

from the concerned authority and the employee does

not accept the charge;

(p)

remaining unauthorizedly absent without intimation

continuously for a period exceeding 30 days;

(q)

misbehaviour towards customers arising out of

bank’s business;

(r)

contesting election for Parliament/Legislative

Assembly/Legislative Council/local bodies/

municipal corporation/panchayat, without explicit

written permission of the bank;

(s)

conviction by a criminal Court of Law for an offence

involving moral turpitude;

(t)

indulging in any act of ‘sexual harassment’ of any

woman at her workplace.

Note: Sexual harassment shall include such unwelcome

sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or

otherwise) as :—

(a)

physical contact and advances;

(b)

demand or request for sexual favours;

(c)

sexually coloured remarks;

(d)

showing pornography; or

(e)

any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-

verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

(u)

the giving or taking or abetting the giving or taking

of dowry or demanding directly or indirectly from

the parents or guardians of a bride or bridegroom,

as the case may be, any dowry”.

32.

Here in the case, the bank served the charge-sheet,

claiming that gross-misconduct within the meaning of

clause 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002 was

committed by the claimant. As canvassed by the claimant,

the Tribunal is required to consider the phrase ‘doing acts

prejudicial to the interest of the bank”, occurring in para

5(j) of the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement. Bipartite

Settlement, referred above, was arrived at between the

parties otherwise than in the conciliation proceedings and

is binding on the parties to the agreement. The above

settlement is a written instrument and has to be construed

in accordance with settled norms, applicable for

construction of written instruments. In construction of

contents of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, the

Tribunal cannot be oblivious of the rules, viz. written

instruments shall, if possible, be so interpreted ‘ut res

magis valeat quam pereat” (a liberal construction should

be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if

possible) and that such a meaning shall be given to it as

may carry out and effectuate to the fullest extent the

intention of the parties.

33.

Elementary principles of the law relating to contracts

is that parties to contracts are to be allowed to regulate

their rights and liabilities themselves and the Courts will

only give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed

in the contract. However, the law in some cases overrides

the will of he individual and renders ineffective and futile

his expressed intention or contract. No court or tribunal

till lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action

upon an immoral or an illegal act. A contract cannot be

made the subject of an action if it be impeachable on the

grounds of dishonesty, or as being opposed to public

policy, if it be either contra bonos mores or forbidden by

law. No court or tribunal will allow itself to be made the

instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of

a contract or transaction which is illegal.

34.

Bipartite settlement dated 10th April, 2002, was

entered into between the management of 52 ‘A’ class banks

as represented by the Indian Bank’s Association and their

workman as represented by the All India Bank Employee

Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees

and Indian National Bank employees Federation. The short

recital of the settlement provides that it details procedure

for talking disciplinary action against workman in the bank,

who were parties to the agreement. Para 2 of the settlement

3904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

defines the expression “offence” to mean any offence

involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable

to conviction and sentence under any provisions of law.

Para 3 of the settlement details the procedure under which

disciplinary action may be initiated against an employee

in case of his acquittal of the offence by a court of law. For

sake of convenience, the provision of para 3 of the

settlement are reproduced as follows :

“3. (a) When in the opinion of the management an

employee has committed an offence, unless he be

otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to

prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a

case he may also be suspended.

(b) If he be convicted, he may be dismissed with

effect from the date of his conviction or be given

any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in

Clause 6 below.

(c) If he be acquitted, it shall be open to the

management to proceed against him under the

provisions set out below in Clauses 11 and 12 infra

relating to discharges. However, in the event of the

management deciding after enquiry not to continue

him in service, he shall be liable only for termination

of service with three months’ pay and allowances in

lieu of notice. And he shall be deemed to have been

on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and

shall be entitled to the full pay and allowance minus

such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and to

all other privileges for the period of suspension

provided that if he be acquitted by being given the

benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of

such pay and allowances as the management may

deem proper, the period of his absence shall not be

treated as a period spent on duty unless the

management so directs.

(d) If he prefers an appeal or revision application

against his conviction and is acquitted, in case he

had already been dealt with as above and he applies

to the management for reconsideration of his case,

the management shall review his case and may either

reinstate him or proceed against him under the

provisions set out below in Clauses 11 and 12 infra

relating to discharge, and the provision set out above

as to pay, allowances and the period of suspension

will apply, the period up-to-date for which full pay

and allowances have not been drawn being treated

as one of suspension. In the event of the

management deciding, after enquiry not to continue

him in service, the employee shall be liable only for

termination with three months’ pay and allowances

in lieu of notice, as directed above”.

35.

Out of the provision of para 2, 3, 11 and 12 of the

settlement, it emerges that an enquiry may be initiated

against an employee of the bank if he allegedly commits

an offence involving moral turpitude. It is a matter of

common knowledge that every offence liable to

punishment under law would not amount to an offence

involving moral turpitude. To term an offence involving

moral turpitude, the act must be vile or harmful to society

in general or contrary to accepted rules or rights and duties

between man and man. The test for determination as to

whether an offence involves moral turpitude are as follows:

(1) whether the act leading to conviction was such as

could shock the moral conscience of society in general?

(2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base

one? and (3) whether on account of the act having been

committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a

depraved character or a person who was to be looked

down upon by the society ?

36.

In Shalimar Rope Works (supra) the Labour Appellate

Tribunal held that the norms and the place where the act

of indiscipline takes place, is not the only factor and if it is

subversive of discipline or involves moral turpitude, that

is enough to give jurisdiction to the management to take

disciplinary action against the employee. In Air India Ltd.

[1952 (2) LLJ 602], the workman assaulted his officer near

Santa Cruz Station, outside the factory premises and it

was held that the act was subversive of discipline. Similar

view was taken in Mill Mazdoor Sabha [1957 (1) LLJ 415],

Chhotelal Ayodhya (1958 ICR 363) and Mehangaram [1957

(1) LLJ 603]. From the above precedents it is evident that

in case of moral turpitude the management will have

jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary action against an

employee, even if act of indiscipline takes place away from

the premises where he is employed and beyond his duty

hours. Same proposition has been embedded in the

provisions of para 2, 3, 11 & 12 of the aforesaid bipartite

settlement. For initiation of domestic action on commission

of an offence involving moral turpitude, it is not necessary

that it should be committed at work place or during duty

hours.

37.

Now efforts would be made to construe the phrase

“doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank” as

used in clause 5(j) of the settlement. At the cost of

repetition, it is said that the employer bank assumes

jurisdiction to punish his employee even if the misconduct

is committed outside the promises or when the employee

was off-duty. An employer would not attempt to improve

moral or ethical tone of his employee’s conduct in relation

to strangers not employed in his concern, by use of

coercive process of disciplinary jurisdiction. However,

when an act committed outside the premises is subversive

of discipline, which will attract disciplinary action, in case

the act has direct connection with the contentment or

comfort of the men at work or has a natural bearing on the

smooth and effective working of the bank. In that situation,

it will be subversive of discipline, if an employee

misbehaves in such a way even outside the premises of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3905

the concern or even when was off duty, that it impaired

reputation of the concern and calculated to create

resentment among workers, the concern would be

perfectively justified in treating that conduct as calculated

to harm its reputation and being subversive of discipline.

See Devan Badri Das [1962 (1) LLJ 526].

38.

When a workman is found guilty of offence involving

moral turpitude, his employer may initiate domestic action

against him. If commission of offence involved moral

turpitude as mentioned in the standing orders or service

rules as misconduct, then the position is clear. Even if the

standing orders did not provide for a case in which an

employee commits offence involving moral turpitude, it

would be unreasonable to contend that despite commission

of the offence, employee would be deemed not to have

committed any misconduct to justify his removal from

service. As facts project, claimant accepted a sum of

Rs.5000.00 from Shri Udayveer Singh for depositing money

in his saving bank account No. 2469. Instead of depositing

the amount in the account of Shri Udayveer Singh, he

misappropriated it. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 4000.00

was deposited by him in current account No.3923

maintained in the name of M/s K.S. Enterprises, since Shri

Kulbhushan was pressing him hard for depositing that

amount which was misappropriated by him out of a sum of

Rs.8000.00 paid to him on 14/15.07.2002. It is evident that

the claimant misappropriated money given to him by Shri

Kulbhushan as well as Shri Udayveer Singh. Though

after a few days he returned the money to Shri Udayveer

Singh and deposited a sum of Rs. 4000.00 in the account

of M/s K.S. Enterprises, yet that fact would not absolve

him from the liability. Above facts make it apparent that

the acts complained against the claimant render him unfit

to perform his duties, which he had undertaken with his

employer. It is well known that banking business is based

on confidence of public in the system. In case an employee

of the bank misappropriates money handed over to him

for depositing in the account of the customer, it would

lead customer(s) to believe that such a person is not worthy

of credence. Such employee, while working in the bank,

would cause loss to the faith of the customers in the

banking system. Customers would be hesitant in banking

upon such an institution. A person who commits acts of

moral turpitude would be said to have committed acts of

willful and careless disregard for the interest of his

employer. Therefore, such a person cannot project

business of his employer and would certainly cause

prejudice to the interest of his master. Consequently I am

constrained to conclude that a person who commits

offence of moral turpitude would fall within the category

of persons against whom disciplinary action can be

initiated.

39.

In view of the reasons detailed above it is announced

that claimant committed acts of moral turpitude and caused

prejudice to the interest of the bank. His acts fall within

the ambit of gross misconduct defined under clause (j) of

the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement. It does not lie in his

mouth to contest that no misconduct was committed by

him in that regard. Objection raised by the claimant in his

claim statement is, hereby, brushed aside.

40.

What should be the appropriate punishment, which

can be awarded to the claimant, is a proposition which

would be addressed to by this Tribunal? For an answer to

this proposition it would be expedient to have a glance on

legal dictum. It is a matter of common knowledge that right

of an employer to award punishment of discharge or

dismissal is not unfettered. The punishment imposed must

commensurate with gravity of the misconduct, proved

against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of

section 11-A of the Act, it was not open to the industrial

adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding

that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not

commensurative with the act of misconduct. In other

words, the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with

the punishment as it was not required to consider propriety

or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or

too severe. The Apex Court, in this connection, had,

however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company

[1963 (I) LLJ 291] that where order of punishment was

shockingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct

which no reasonable employer would impose in like

circumstances, that itself would lead to the inference of

victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate

order of dismissal or discharge. But by enacting the

provisions of section 11-A of the Act, the Legislature has

transferred the discretion of the employer, in imposing

punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the

satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide

the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct,

in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the Tribunal is

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not

justified in any circumstances on the facts of a given case,

it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment

and direct reinstatement with back wages, but it has also

the power to impose certain conditions as it may deem fit

and also to give relief to the workman, including award of

lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

41.

It is established law that imposing punishment for a

proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not

required to consider the propriety or adequacy of

punishment. But where the punishment is shockingly

disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduct

and past record, or is such as no reasonable employer

would ever impose in like circumstance, the Tribunal may

treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing

victimization or unfair labour practice. Law to this effect

was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and

Engineering Company Ltd. [1965 (I) LLJ 462]. Likewise in

3906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management of the Federation of Indian Chambers of

Commerce and Industry [1971 (II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court

ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill

and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of

prestige and reputation and as such punishment of

dismissal was held to be unwarranted. In Ram Kishan [1996

(I) LLJ 982] the delinquent employee was dismissed from

service for using abusive language against a superior

officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,

the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was

harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge

imputed to the delinquent. It was ruled therein, “when

abusive language is used by anybody against a superior,

it must be understood in the environment in which that

person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the

event that led to the use of abusive language. No straight-

jacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether

the abusive language in the given circumstances would

warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be

considered on its own facts”

42.

In B.M.Patil [1996 (II) LLJ 536], Justice Mohan Kumar

of Karnataka High Court observed that in exercise of

discretion, the Disciplinary Authority should not act like a

robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and

understanding. It has to assess each case on its own merit

and each set of fact should be decided with reference to

the evidence recording the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was too harsh and

disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

43.

After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act

of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the

case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent

in Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab.I.C.817). The discretion to

award punishment lesser than the punishment of

discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and

the Tribunal can interfere only when it is satisfied that the

punishment imposed by the management is highly

disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman.

Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji

Parmar [1994 (II) LLJ 332]. Thus it is evident that the

Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting

its own measure of punishment in place of the managerial

wisdom, once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or

dismissal is not justified. On facts and in the circumstances

of a case, section 11A of the Act specifically gives two

folds powers to the Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually

the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the

Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy

of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly

of foremost importance, is the power of reappraisal of

quantum of punishment.

44.

In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2005 (2) S.C.C. 481]

the Apex Court was confronted with the proposition as to

whether power available to the Industrial Tribunal under

section 11-A of the Act are unlimited. The Court opined

that “there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction vested

with any judicial or quasi judicial forum and unfettered

discretion is sworn enemy of the constitutional guarantee

against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction leads to

unreasonableness. No authority, be it administrative or

judicial, has any power to exercise discretion vested in it

unless the same is based on justifiable grounds supported

by acceptable materials and reasons thereof”. The Apex

Court relied its judgement in C.M.C. Hospital Employees

Union [1987 (4) S.C.C. 691] wherein it was held that “section

11-A cannot be considered as conferring an arbitrary power

on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The power

under section 11-A of the Act has to be exercised

judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is

expected to interfere with the decision of a management

under section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that

the punishment imposed by the management is highly

disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workmen

concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court has

to give reasons for its decision”. In Hombe Gowda

Educational Trust [2006 (1) S.C.C. 430] the Apex Court

announced that the Tribunal would not normally interfere

with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer

unless an appropriate case is made out therefore.

45.

Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untrammeled power. This power has to be exercised

only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge

or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the

Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one.

It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to

various circumstances like nature of delinquency

committed by the workman, his past conduct, impact of

delinquency on employer’s business, besides length of

service rendered by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to

consider whether the decision taken by the employer is

just or not. Only after taking into consideration these

aspects, the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3907

by the employer. The quantum of punishment cannot be

interfered with without recording specific findings on

points referred above. No indulgence is to be granted to

a person, who is guilty of grave misconduct like cheating,

fraud, misappropriation of employers fund, theft of public

property etc. A reference can be made to the precedent in

Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [1995 (I) LLJ 960].

46.

As noted above, the claimant misappropriated

money, handed over by Shri Kulbhushan as well as Shri

Udayveer Singh for deposit in their respective accounts

and converted it for his personal use. Misconduct like

cheating, fraud and misappropriation of employers funds

are grave one, justifying punishment of compulsory

retirement from service. Question for consideration comes

as to whether punishment awarded to the claimant was

shockingly disproportionate to his misconduct, justifying

interference by this Tribunal? In Firestone Tyre and Rubber

Company of India (Pvt.) Ltd. [1973 (1) S.C.C. 813], the

Apex Court ruled that once misconduct is proved, the

Tribunal had to sustain order of punishment unless it was

harsh indicating victimization. It has been further laid

therein that if a proper enquiry is conducted by an employer

and a correct finding arrived at regarding the misconduct,

the Tribunal, even though now empowered to differ from

the conclusion arrived at by the management, will have to

give very cogent reasons for not accepting the view of

the employer. Again in Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C.

(N.W.K.R.T.C) [2005 (3) S.C.C. 254] it was laid that question

of quantum of punishment would not be weighed on

amount of money misappropriated but it should be based

on loss of confidence, which is a primary factor to be

taken into account. Once a person is found guilty of

misappropriating his employer’s fund, there is nothing

wrong for the employer to lose confidence or faith in such

a person, awarding punishment of dismissal.

47.

As proved by the bank, the claimant misappropriated

money handed over to him by the customers, namely Shri

Kulbhushan and Shri Udayveer Singh. Element of deceit

and injury to the person deceived was there in the act

committed by the claimant, hence it answered all

ingredients of fraud. It is a matter of common knowledge

that misconduct of fraud is of serious nature, warranting

penalty of dismissal. Reference can be made to the

precedent in Tika Ram & Sons Ltd. [1960 (1) LLJ 514 S.C.].

48.

Punishment of compulsory retirement form service

commensurate to the misconduct committed by the

claimant. It cannot be said that the punishment awarded

to the claimant was shockingly disproportionate to his

misconduct, justifying interference by the Tribunal. The

punishment of compulsory retirement from service cannot

be said to be harsh, indicating victimization. One who

commits misconducts, like cheating and fraud looses

confidence of his employer. Therefore, I am of the

considered opinion that the claimant has miserably failed

to project that punishment awarded to him is to be

substituted by any other punishment.

49.

Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement from

bank service, awarded to the claimant, would relate back

to the date of order of compulsory retirement passed by

the bank? For an answer, it is expedient to consider

precedents handed down by the Apex Court. In Ranipur

Colliery [(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 719] the employer conducted

a domestic enquiry though defective and passed an order

of dismissal and moved the Tribunal for approval of that

order. It was ruled therein that if the enquiry is not defective,

the Tribunal has only to see whether there was a prima

facie case for dismissal and whether the employer had

come to the bonafide conclusion that the employee was

guilty of misconduct. Thereafter on coming to that

conclusion that the employer had bonafide come to the

conclusion that the employee was guilty, that is, there

was no unfair labour practice and no victimization, the

Tribunal would grant the approval which would relate back

to the date from which the employer had ordered the

dismissal. If the enquiry is defective for any reason, the

Tribunal would also have to consider for itself on the

evidence adduced before it whether the dismissal was

justified. However on coming to the conclusion on its

own appraisal of evidence adduced before it that the

dismissal was justified its approval of the order of

dismissal made by the employer on defective enquiry

would still relate back to the date when order was made.

50.

In Phulbari Tea Estate [1960 (I) S.C.R. 32] the

domestic enquiry held by the employer culminating in the

order of dismissal was found to be invalid, being in gross

violation of the rules of natural justice. Even before the

Tribunal, the employer did not lead proper evidence to

justify the order of dismissal and contended itself by merely

producing the statement of certain witnesses recorded

during the domestic enquiry and the workman had no

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses before the

Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence before it,

justifying the dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the order of

dismissal and granted compensation in lieu of

reinstatement, which order was upheld by the Apex Court.

In that case question of relating back of the order of

dismissal did not arise.

51.

In P.H. Kalyani [1963 (1) LLJ 673] the employer

dismissed the workman after holding a domestic enquiry

into the charges. Since some dispute was pending before

the Industrial Tribunal, the employer applied for “approval”

of action of dismissal in compliance with the proviso to

section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman made an

application under section 33-A of the Act. Apart from

relying on validity of domestic enquiry, the employer

adduced all the evidence before the Tribunal in support of

3908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

its action. On basis of evidence before it, the Tribunal

came to the conclusion that the facts of misconduct

committed by the workman were of serious nature

involving danger to human life and therefore dismissed

the application under section 33-A and accorded

“approval” to the action of dismissal taken by the employer.

In this situation the Apex Court held that if the enquiry is

not defective and the action of the employer is bonafide,

the Tribunal will grant the approval” and the dismissal

would “relate back to the date from which the employer

had ordered dismissal”. If the enquiry is invalid for any

reason, the Tribunal will have to consider for itself on the

evidence adduced before it, whether the dismissal was

justified. If it comes to the conclusion on its own appraisal

of such evidence that the dismissal was justified, the

dismissal would “still relate back to the date when the

order was made”. Sasa Musa Sugar Works case [1959 (II)

LLJ 388] was distinguished saying that observations made

therein “apply only to a case where the employer had

neither dismissed the employee nor had come to the

conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made. In

that case, the dismissal of the employee takes effect from

the date of the award and so until then the relation of

employer and employee will continue in law and in fact”.

52.

D.C.Roy [(1976) Lab. I.C. 1142] is the illustration

where domestic enquiry held by the employer was found

to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice

and the employer had justified the order of dismissal by

leading evidence before the Labour Court, on appraisal of

which the Labour Court found the order of dismissal

justified. In appeal, the Apex Court upheld the award with

the observation that “the ratio of Kalyani’s case (supra)

would therefore, govern the case and the judgment of the

Labour Court must relate back to the date on which the

order of dismissal was passed”.

53.

In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1980 (1) LLJ 137] inverted

image of the D.C. Roy’s case was presented by a majority

of three judge bench wherein it was held that “where no

enquiry has preceded punitive discharge, and the Tribunal

for the first time upholds the punishment, this court in

D.C. Roy vs. Presiding Officer (supra) has taken the view

that full wages be paid until the date of the award. There

cannot be any relation back of the date of dismissal when

the management passed the void order”. Though the court

ruled that law laid in D.C.Roy is correct yet it followed

obiter instead of the decision. Observations of the Apex

Court in above decision, bearing on the relate back rule,

were faulted in R. Thiruvirkolam [1997 (1) SCC 9] on the

ground that they “are not in the line with the decision in

Kalyani which was binding or with D.C.Roy to which

learned Judge Krishna Iyer J. was a party. It also does not

match with the juristic principle discussed in Wade”. The

view taken in R.Thiruvirkolam (supra) was affirmed in

Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (1997 (2) LLJ

1041].

54.

In view of the catena of decisions, detailed above, it

is clear that an employer can justify its action by leading

evidence before the Tribunal. This equally applies to cases

of total absence of enquiry and defective enquiry. A case

of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no

enquiry. If no evidence is led or evidence adduced does

not justify the dismissal by the employer, the Tribunal can

order reinstatement or payment of compensation as it may

think fit. But if it finds on the evidence adduced before it

that the dismissal is justified, the doctrine of relate back is

pressed into service to bridge the time gap between the

rupture of the relationship of employer and employee and

the finding of the Tribunal.

55.

If the workman is to be paid wages upto the date of

the award of the Tribunal, the Parliament has to enact so,

declares the Delhi High Court in Ranjit Singh Tomar (ILR

1983 Delhi 802). Obviously the Act does not make any

provision for the situation. Precedents in Ghanshyam Das

Shrivastava [1973 (1) SCC 656], Capt. M.Paul Anthony

[1999 (3) SCC 679] and South Bengal State Transport

Corporation [2006 (2) SCC 584] nowhere deal with the

controversy, hence are not discussed.

56.

In view of the facts detailed above, punishment of

compulsory retirement from bank service would relate back

to the date of the order. Claimant could not bring it to light

that the order of compulsory retirement from service would

be applicable from the date of the award and not from the

date of the order. All these facts would project that

punishment of compulsory retirement from service,

awarded to the claimant, is legal, fair and justified. Claimant

could not show any illegality in the punishment, awarded

to him by the bank. The issue is, therefore, answered in

favour of the bank and against the claimant.

Relief.

57.

In view of above discussion, I am of the considered

opinion that the claimant is not a person on whom the

bank can depend upon. Banking business is conducted

on trust and confidence. When an employee is found not

to be trustworthy, his retention in service may affect

business of the bank. Such an employee cannot be retained

in service. Therefore punishment of compulsory retirement

from service is not to be interfered with by this Tribunal.

The claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of

relief of reinstatement in service. His claim statement is

liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is concluded that

the action of the bank in compulsorily retiring the claimant

from service is legal and justified. Claim statement is

brushed aside. An award is passed in favour of the bank

and against the claimant. It be sent to appropriate

Government for publication.

dated : 21.4.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3909

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1481-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

èkuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 9@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@30@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014

S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 9/2003) 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 Eastern

Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-41011/30/2002-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 09 of 2003

Employers in relation to the management of

D. R. M, Eastern Railway, Gaya

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: None

For the workman

: Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Bihar

Industry : Railway

Dated 22/4/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-41011/30/2002-IR(B-I), dated

18/12/2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of Gaya Railway Station poldar

workers Union for issuing identity Cards and treating

them at per with the licensed porters by the railway

administration is legal and justified?’ If so, what

relief the Union is entitled to?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

01.01.2003. After notice, both parties appeared. The

workman files their written statement on 20.03.2003 and

the management files their written statement on 15.02.2005.

3.

The short point involved in the case is whether the

workman will be given Identity Card to work as licensed

porter in Rly. station. The case of the workman is that they

were engaged as porter in the goods shed and was loading

and unloading goods alongwith others. In Support of

that he has filed photocopy of I.Card being signed by

Chief goods shed supdt. / incharge of Eastern Railway.

The workman demands that they be given the status of

licensed porters.

4.

The management submitted that, the railway is a big

organization of India, who used to carry passengers and

goods where the railway Track is on.

5.

It is stated in paragraph 13 of the counter by the

railway that I.D Card is issued only to Rly. employees and

not to labourers etc. But in this case photocopy of I.D

Card of workman filed. Though It is photocopy, It was not

disputed by the Rly, in their counter.

5.

Since some photocopy I.D.Card filed, and in the

counter by Rly. it is stated that I.D.Card granted to persons

who work in Railways, there is no difficulty to pass order,

directing management to verify the I.Cards and their

records and atleast recognized the workman as licensed

porter .

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1482-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ eè; jsyos

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 35@2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@02@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 35/2012) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the

3910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industrial dispute between the management of E. C. Railway,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 08/05/2014.

[No. L-41011/02/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 35 of 2012

Employers in relation to the management of

East Central Railway, Sonpur Division

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

For the workman

: Sri Chandrika Prasad, Advocate

State : Bihar

Industry:-Railway

Dated 17/4/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-41011/02/2012-IR(B-I), dated

03/04/2012, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of the Union, East Central

Railway Employees Union (ECREU) for

regularization of Shri Ram Gyan Roy in railway

service is legal and justified ? To what relief the

workman is entitled ?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

03.05.2012. After notice, both parties appeared. The

workman files their written statement on 28.05.2012. The

management did not appear to file written statement, the

case is reserved after ex-parte hearing, In the meantime

management appeared and files a recall petition. Thereafter

the management files written statement-cum-rejoinder on

09.01.2014.

3.

The workman filed documents marked as W-1 series

and W-2 i.e photo copies of attendance register and

examined himself as WW-1 . The management counsel did

not choose to cross examine him as such his evidence

remained unchallenged.

4.

The case of the workman is that barring him all other

employees are taken in job as per the orders of Central

Appellate Tribunal. He has stated that he was also a party

before the CAT.

5.

The Management though denied the fact but neither

filed any oral evidence nor any document to disprove

the version of the workman.

6.

Therefore Considering the facts and circumstance

of this case , I considering the unchallenged testimony

of workman and his documents, accept the claim of the

workman. Hence It is ordered to regularize the workman

within 30 days after the publication of the award in the

official gazette.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1483-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@06@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O.

1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 16/2014) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of State Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 16/04/2014.

[No. L-12012/06/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 27th March, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 16/2014

(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 State Bank of India and their workman)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3911

BETWEEN

Sri R.N. Elangovan

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Regional Manager (RBO-I) : 2nd Party/Respondent

State Bank of India

Administrative Office

“Madhuram” Complex No. 2

Dr. Ambedkar Road

Madurai-625002

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: Petitioner in Person

For the 2nd Party/Management

: —

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/06/2014-IR(B-I)

dated 04.03.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Madurai in dismissing Sri R.N.

Elangovan is justified? If not, to what relief, is the

workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 16/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel.

3.

On receipt of the notice the petitioner has entered

appearance. A memo is filed stating that he has filed ID 7/

2014 before this Tribunal directly regarding the same

subject matter and so he is not pressing this ID. So there

is no necessity to proceed with this case.

The ID is closed as not pressed.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 27th March, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

:

None

Documents Marked on Petitioner &

:

Nil

Management sides

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1484-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l

dksudu jsyos dkjiksjs'ku fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

16@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@34@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O. 1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 16/2011) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd., and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 29/04/2014.

[No. L-41012/34/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/16 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD.

The Managing Director

M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

Belapur Bhavan

Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Venugopal Bhatt, Sr. SM/TOK & 7 ors.

C/o. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

Belapur Bhavan

Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Gurunath Naik, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN: No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 8th April 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-41012/34/2009-IR (B-I),

dated 13.01.2011 (received along with corrigendum dated

15/04/2011) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the

following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

3912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. in not considering

8 workmen mentioned below for promotion to the

post of Traffic Supervisors (worth Charge Post)

considering the number of years’ service rendered

by them in the said post is legal and justified? To

what relief the workmen are entitled?”

1.

Mr. Rajesh S. Naik, TI/BL (Deleted/ withdrawn)

2.

Mr. S. K. Bala, AS/RN

3.

Mr. C.K. Thobias, SCOR/BL (Deleted/ withdrawn)

4.

Mr. Venugopal Bhatt, Sr. SM/TOK

5.

Mr. Suresh I. Naik, SCORL/BL

6.

Mr. Sainath Reddy, SCOR/BL

7.

Mr. Roshan, AS/ MAO

8.

Mr. Dileep D. Bhat, AS/KAWR

2.

Notices were issued to both the parties. One of the

workmen Mr. Suresh Naik appeared for the workmen on

three – four occasions. Thereafter he remained absent.

Notices were again issued to the workmen vide Ex-7 & 8

for filing statement of claim. The second party union did

not appear and file their Statement of claim therefore, this

reference cannot be decided on merits and the same

deserves to be rejected. Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.

Date : 08.04.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1485-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj pEcy {ks=kh;

xzkeh.k cSad fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 81@93) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@341@91&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O.

1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 81/93) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Chambal Keshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 29/04/2014.

[No. L-12012/341/91-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/81/93

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Rambabu Yadav,

S/o Shri Ram Singh,

Village Orathi, PO Rajodha,

Tehsil Porsa,

Distt. Morena

.....Workman

Versus

Chairman,

Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

HO Jiwaji Ganj,

Moena (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of April 2014

1.

As per letter dated 7-8/4/93 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

341/91-IR(B.III). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chambal

Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services

of Shri Ram Babu Yadav w.e.f. 1-5-89 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 submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed as

messenger as per order dated 20-6-86. He was confirmed

on post of messenger by IInd party as per order dated 21-

9-88. At the time of appointment, he was posted at Kichol

branch , Distt. Morena. He was transferred from Kichol to

Head Office Morena on 29-4-89. He was relieved. Then

workman joined at Head office on 1-5-89. He further states

that after joining at Head office, IInd party abused him

and forced to submit resignation without any cause or

basis. Ist party workman was compelled to write resignation

under threats of submitting report to police. Letter of

resignation was dictated and his signature was obtained

on it. That immediately workman reported matter to police.

His report was not received by police therefore on 26-5-

89, the workman send registered letter complaining about

the matter. He prayed for cancellation of resignation.

Workman reiterates that as IInd party had refused his

letter for cancellation of resignation, said letter was sent

by RPAD. No reply was given by IInd party. Therefore he

sent notice through his Advocate. IInd party given false

reply to notice given through Advocate. Thereafter

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3913

workman raised dispute initiating conciliation proceedings

before ALC, Bhopal. The Govt. refused to refer dispute.

Workman filed miscellaneous petition 586/92 as per

direction given in order dated 18-12-92. The dispute is

referred. Workman reiterates that his resignation was

obtained by IInd party under threats. His alleged

resignation is void, illegal. On such grounds, workman

prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 7/1 to 7/5.

The IInd party submits that workman was appointed as

part time messenger as daily wages in the bank. He was

confirmed as messenger on 21-9-88. IInd party submits

that workman was relieved on 21-9-88 from Kichol branch,

he was not transferred from Kichol to Head Office Morena.

It is denied that workman joined at Head Office Morena

on 1-5-89. It is denied that workman was abused and forced

to submit resignation. It is denied that workman was

compelled to write resignation on threats. Workman was

part time messenger in Kichol branch. Workman had

manipulated ledger sheets of Saving Bank Accounts. He

had altered credit balance. Two Accounts had come to

notice of Branch Manager. In Account No. 144 of Shri

Omkar Singh, credit balance was Rs. 40/- , the figure 6 was

added and amount was made Rs.640/-. Amount of Rs. 450/-

was withdrawn by workman. It is further submitted that

workman and Account holder were in connivance that

w.r.t. Account 153 of Ajmer Singh, the credit balance was

Rs.5/-, figure 60 was added and made as Rs.605/-. Amount

of Rs. 600/- was withdrawn by workman. When workman

came to Morena on 1-5-89 and met IInd party, he was told

about manipulation in ledger sheet and from preliminary

report of the Branch Manager, realizing gravity of the

matter and its consequences, Ist party voluntarily tendered

his resignation. IInd party was requested not to report to

police and the amount was deposited by the workman. If

the matter be reported, his career would be ruined.

Considering submissions of workman, the resignation of

workman was accepted on same day. After about month

on 30-5-89, IInd party issued letter dated 29-5-89 Ist party

workman alleged his resignation was obtained by post,

IInd party denies that resignation of workman was obtained

under force. Workman himself voluntarily submitted his

resignation. On such grounds, IInd party prays for

rejection of the claim of workman.

4.

Rejoinder is also filed by workman at Page 9/1 to

9/2 reiterating his 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 action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Chambal Kshetriya Gramin

Bank in terminating the services of

Shri Ram Babu Yadav w.e.f. 1-5-89 is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order

REASONS

6.

Workman is challenging termination of his services

pleading that his resignation was obtained by IInd party

by force. IInd party had dictated letter of resignation and

forced him to sign on it. In support of his claim, workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was

appointed as messenger on 20-6-86. He was confirmed on

said post on 21-9-88. He was transferred from Kichol

branch to Head Office Morena on 29-4-89. He joined Head

Office Morena on 1-5-89. IInd party compelled him to sign

on letter of resignation. His attendance was not marked

on Muster roll. He had sent letter to IInd party on 26-5-89

as said letter was not accepted, he issued notice through

his counsel. In his cross-examination workman says he

was working as part time messenger, he was doing cleaning

and other works through out the day. On 1-5-89, he had

gone for joining duty at Head Office Morena. He was given

benefit of P-2 Grade. Except P-2 Grade, he has no other

evidence. He denies that he had not joined service at

Morena on 1-5-89. He denies that he had not given P-3 to

the IInd party rather some other letter was given by him.

He denies addition of amount in Account of Ajmer Singh

from Rs.5 to making it to Rs. 605/-. He admits that the

document Exhibit M-1, M-2 are in his handwriting. Those

documents bears his signature on reverse side. He denies

that he has admitted his misdeed ad requested management

not to submit report to police. He also denies that he had

deposited amount in Account of Ajmer Singh and Omkar

Singh. He denies that he had voluntary submitted

documents Exhibit M-3. The documents are admitted by

Ist party Exhibit M-1 receipt of Rs.10/-, M-2 receipt of

Rs.60/-, M-3 receipt of Rs. 120/-,, M-4 receipt of Rs. 500/-,

M-5 receipt of Rs. 100, M-6 receipt of Rs.24/-.

7.

Affidavit of Omkar Singh is filed but he was not

made available for cross-examination. His evidence cannot

be considered. Again the affidavit of Shri Omkar Singh is

filed. He has stated that the Ist party workman was working

in the Bank. He himself was working for 20 days in the

Bank. Thereafter he was discontinued. That in Account

No. 144 of Pradeep, amount of Rs. 450/- was paid obtaining

his signature on withdrawal form. In his cross-examination,

witness Omkar Singh says there is no evidence about his

working 20 days in the Bank. He has not brought his pass

book in the Bank. He did not recollect whether he withdrawn

amount of Rs. 450/- from his account. He did not recollect

whether workman Rambabu had given document in writing

to save himself from police. That he had come for his

evidence alongwith workman Rambabu. That in 1986, he

was working in Regional Rural Bank. Thereafter Rambabu

was working in Bank. Witness Omkar Singh tried to

3914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

corroborate the evidence of workman. Management has

not disputed that workman was engaged and he was

confirmed as employee. Case of management is that

workman had committed act of forgery/ fraud and to avoid

action by police, he had voluntarily submitted resignation

as such working of workman in the Bank is not disputed.

However witness was cross-examined on different lines.

His evidence is not shattered rather it corroborates

evidence of workman who was working in the Bank.

8.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri

Pradeep Garod. He denied appointment of Ist party as

messenger. That Ist party workman was engaged on daily

wages. He was confirmed . the transfer of workman from

Kichol Branch to Head office Morena on 29-4-89 is denied.

Management’s witness has stated in para-4 that workman

while working as part time messenger at Kichol Branch

manipulated ledger sheets of Saving Bank Accounts of

customers. In Account No. 144 Omkar Singh amount

Rs. 40/- was converted to Rs. 640/-. Fradulently amount

Rs. 450/- was withdrawn from said account in connivance

with Account Holder. That Account No. 153, amount

Rs. 5/- was converted to Rs. 605/- and amount of Rs. 600/-

was withdrawn from said account. Workman had submitted

resignation to avoid police action. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says Ist party workman was

working as part time employee. DE was conducted against

workman. The documents of Enquiry Proceedings are not

produced. He was unable to tell whether statement of

Ajmer Singh and Omkar Singh were recorded. He states

that their statements are not produced on record.

Management’s witness in his further cross-examination

says he was not working during 1986-88 at Kichol branch.

He was working in Kichol branch from 1-5-89 as Branch

Manager. Next day he says in contents of para-2 of affidavit,

he was working in 1988 as Branch Manager is correct.

Thus evidence of management’s witness is not cogent

about his working. Evidence of management’s witness that

applicant was fraud, he voluntarily submitted resignation

cannot be relied. As the original resignation letter is not

produced by management. Management has adduced no

evidence. Evidence of any witness about workman

voluntarily submitted resignation. Zerox copy of alleged

letter of resignation is produced by IInd party at Page 16/

5 but no care is taken to prove said document of

resignation. From evidence of management’s witness

resignation letter is not proved. Management’s witness

doesnot claim that he was present at the time of alleged

letter of resignation submitted by workman. Initially

management’s witness claims he was not working in 1988

but whether he was working as Branch Manager in 1989.

The resignation by workman is not proved. There is no

evidence by management how services of workman were

terminated. The management has not produced any

documents about enquiry conducted against workman in

respect of forgery and withdrawal of amount form Account

No. 144 & 153 of Omkar Singh and Ajmer Singh. There is

absolutely no evidence that the services of workman

were terminated from 1-5-89. Therefore the termination of

services of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No. in Negative.

9.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1 that

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

arises to what relief the workman is entitled. The evidence

of workman in Para-5 stated that after termination of his

services, he was unemployed. The evidence of

management’s witness is silent that workman is in gainful

employment. The evidence of workman is also silent how

he survive after termination of his service in 1-5-89. The

workman must be doing some work for his survival.

Keeping above aspects in view, reinstatement of workman

with 25 % back wages would be appropriate and meet the

ends of justice. accordingly I record finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chambal Kshetriya

Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ram

Babu Yadav w.e.f. 1-5-89 is illegal.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to reinstate

workman with continuity of service with 25 % back

wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1486-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@6@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O.

1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 55/98) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of Central

Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 29/04/2014.

[No. L-41011/6/97-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3915

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/98

Presiding Officer: Shri R. B. PATLE

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Rail Mazdoor Congress,

Dwarkanagar, Qr. No. 64, Gali No.1,

Coach Factory Road,

Bhopal (MP)

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Bhopal

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of April 2014

1.

As per letter dated 11-3-98 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41011/

6/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Railway Manager, Central Railway Bhopal in not

regularizing services of 136 MRCL employees as

per list enclosed is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entitled for?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman failed to submit statement

of claim. Workman was proceeded exparte on 26-2-07.

Management filed Written Statement. The case of IInd

party is that workman has not filed statement of claim.

Workman is not interested to file statement of claim. The

claim of workman be rejected.

3.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Satyendra Singh, S/o Shri Baburao. Management’s

witness has stated that any record is not available about

the work of workman. Workman has not submitted his

statement of claim evenafter lapse of 10 years. IInd party

is not liable for claim of the workman as workman has not

participated in reference proceedings, the award is passed

as under:-

“Action of the management not regularizing services

of 136 employees is proper. Employees are not

entitled to relief prayed by them.”

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1487-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 202@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@657@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O.

1487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 202/99)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 29/04/2014.

[No. L-12012/657/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/202/99

Presiding Officer : Shri R.B.PATLE

Shri Tuka Ram Sahu,

S/o Shri Bisauha Sahu,

C/o Shri Madhoran Sahu,

Khamardih, Shankernagar,

Raipur

.....Workman

Versus

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

New Shanti Nagar Branch,

Raipur(CG)

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-I, Regional Office,

Shankar Nagar,

Raipur (CG)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this Ist day of April 2014

1.

As per letter dated 10-5-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

3916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

657/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, New Shanti Nagar Branch and Asstt.

General Manager, Region-I, Raipur in terminating

the services of Shri Tuka Ram Sahu, Messenger cum

Farash w.e.f. 7-2-98 and not provising him regular

employment in the Bank is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

page 2/1 to 2/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was appointed by IInd party as messenger-cum-farash

against vacant post vide order dated 5-2-97, 13-3-97, 7-6-

97 for different periods. His services were orally

discontinued by IInd party w.e.f. 7-2-98. That he has

completed more than 240 days continuous service. He

was paid wages Rs.16/- per month. He is covered as

workman under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act in 1990, IInd party

hold interview for appointment of messengers in branches.

Workman was called for interview as per letter dated 8-2-

90. He was interviewed alongwith other candidates. He

was found suitable for post of messenger. His name was

at Sl.No.12 of the selection list. Workman reiterates that

he has completed 240 days continuous service. That

candidates Tanwir Ahmed at Sl.No.50, Kindallal Yadav at

Sl.No.57, Deokumar Yadav at Sl.No.82, Sunil Kumar Yadav

at Sl.No. 121 and many others were appointed against

permanent post of messenger. He was not given

appointment order as messenger. That even persons who

had not appeared for selection were appointed as

permanent messengers. The termination of his service is

by way of punishment. It amounts to retrenchment. He

was not served with notice, no retrenchment compensation

was paid to him by IInd party. The action of the IInd party

is arbitrary and as such illegal. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3.

IInd party initially submitted application for disposal

of case in view of direction in Writ Petition No.5625/98

dated 24-8-99. Directions were given that petitioners shall

give period of his service, name of branches, certificate/

proof in support of their claim , shall furnish date of birth,

documents in support of the date of birth, petitioner shall

furnish name of the persons worked for lesser number of

days shall furnish information and documents within one

month to the Dy.General Manager who has to adjudicate

the claim of the petitioners within two months. Dy. General

Manager to give reasons for his conclusion. The claim of

petitioner found suitable. The consequential reliefs were

to be granted by Bank within 3 days in pursuance of said

application. Information was submitted by the IInd party

that the Ist party workman had worked for 80 days during

relevant period. The Written Statement is also filed by

the management. The claim of workman is denied. IInd

party denies that workman was continuously working.

That there were settlements between management and

workman dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 27-10-88, 9-1-91, 9-6-95,

30-7-96. As per the settlement, workman was interviewed,

he was placed in Waiting List. Workman could not be

absorbed in Bank service as he can put only 80 days of

temporary service in 14-8-91. His working days were less

than the candidates appointed by the Bank. As per

settlement workman was dis-engaged from service as the

panel expired he couldnot be absorbed. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service during 12 calendar

months preceding his termination. The settlement dated

5-11-01 is reproduced. Workman had put only 80 days

working, he was not in recruitment zone. All other

contentions of workman are denied. It is submitted that

candidates Tanwir Ahmed worked for 232 days, Kundanlal

for 310 days, Uday Ram Nishad for 286 days and Lokesh

Kumar Yadav for 710 days. Considering their working days

were more, they were absorbed. Dev Kumar Dewangan

having worked 73 days, Sunil Kumar Yadav for 37 working

days were not absorbed by IInd party. On such

contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of State Bank of India, New

Shanti Nagar Branch and Asstt.

General Manager, Region-I, Raipur

in terminating the services of Shri

Tuka Ram Sahu, Messenger cum

Farash w.e.f. 7-2-98 and not provising

him regular employment in the Bank is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief prayed

by him.

REASONS

5.

Though workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act, his services

were terminated without notice, retrenchment was not paid,

he had completed 240 days continuous service. He was

called for interview. His name was in seniority list, he was

not absorbed, his services were terminated illegally.

Management had denied all its material contentions.

Workman has not participated in the reference proceeding.

No evidence is adduced by him. Evidence of workman is

closed on 27-10-2010. Management filed affidavit of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3917

evidence of Shri A.C.S.Rao, Chief Manager. The witness

of the management has covered most of the contentions

of the IInd party in his evidence. His evidence remained

unchallenged as the workman failed to cross-examine the

said witness. I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of

management’s witness Shri Rao. There is no evidence to

support claim of workman. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6.

In the result award is passed as under-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of India,

New Shanti Nagar Branch and Asstt. General

Manager, Region-I, Raipur in terminating the services

of Shri Tuka Ram Sahu, Messenger cum Farash w.e.f.

7-2-98 and not provising him regular employment in

the Bank is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1488-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2009) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@49@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O.

1488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2009) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 29/04/2014.

[No. L-12012/49/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 59 of 2009.

Reference No. L-12012/49/2009-IR(B-I)dated 11.01.2010.

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh,

No.B-IX-442,

Mohala Santokhpura,

Jalandhar City.

.....Workman

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager (Operations),

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office-Punjab, Civil Lines,

Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman

: Workman in person.

For the Management

: Sh. S.K. Gupta.

AWARD

Passed on 21-04-2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-12012/49/2009-IR(B-I)dated 11.01.2010

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Chandigarh in imposing the penalty

of dismissal of compulsory retirement with

superannuation benefits on Shri Surinder Pal Singh

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

2.

The workman in his claim statement pleaded that

while working as Senior Assistant at State Bank of India at

Phillaur Branch, he was served with a charge sheet which

is reproduced below:-

“(I) You under drunkenness on 13.10.2005 created

disorderly and indecent behaviour on Bank’s

premises of the Bank affecting the Bank’s image and

customer service;

(II) You unauthorisedly left the branch on 23.09.2005

at 2.00 p.m. and did not turn-up till closing of the

business hours on that day;

(III) Smt. Kirpal Kaur Savings Bank Account Holder

No.10683 and Sh.Gurvinder Singh bearing Belt

No.PPA-333 complained that you misbehaved with

them on 15.09.2005 and 16.09.2005 respectively in

the Bank’s premises while they had come to transact

their business. A photo copy of each of the

complaint made by them is enclosed;

(IV) You left the branch on 12.09.2005 without

tallying the balances while posting lists of salaries

of staff of various Departments and parked huge

credits in the System Suspense Account and created

obstacles in the work of the other colleagues and

Bank’s Books were not closed in time resulting into

disrupting normal functioning of the branch.”

3.

It is pleaded by the workman that the charges were

without any basis. On 23.09.2005, the workman was present

in the Bank and he was busy in getting the printer repaired

3918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by the service engineer Rajan Kumar, the record of which

is available in the bank. Complaints were procured by the

branch manager himself. Inquiry was ordered into the

charges. The inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer

was in total violation of principle of natural justice. As

regards charge No.1 is concerned, the same has wrongly

held to be proved. Other charges were also been held to

be proved by the inquiry officer against the evidence

recorded. The workman was not allowed to lead his

evidence. He was not provided with the copy of inquiry

report. The punishment imposed upon the workman is

highly disproportionate. The appeal filed by the workman

was also dismissed without applying the judicious mind.

It is prayed by the workman that punishment imposed as

such may be set aside and the management may be directed

to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages.

4.

The management in written statement pleaded that

the workman was compulsorily retired with

superannuating benefit after a fair and proper inquiry. The

workman was afforded full opportunity to defend himself

during inquiry. He was given full opportunity to prove his

innocence. It is however pleaded by the management that

if the inquiry proceedings are vitiated on any ground for

violation of principle of natural justice, the management

reserves its right to prove the charges of misconduct

against the workman before this court by leading additional

evidence. On the charges, the management submitted that

the charges were proved during departmental inquiry.

Finding of inquiry were submitted which are based on the

documents and testimony of witnesses and their cross-

examination. Charges No.1,3 and 4 stands proved, whereas

charge No.2 stands not fully proved. The disciplinary

authority after applying its mind imposed the penalty which

is perfectly legal. Appeal of the workman was also

dismissed after applying its mind. Charge No.1, 3, and 4

were fully proved, whereas charge No. 2 was not fully

proved.

5.

The workman also filed replication to the written

statement reiterating the claim made in the claim statement.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that my predecessor

while hearing the arguments on fairness of inquiry came

to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings and

subsequent disciplinary proceedings were against the

principles of natural justice and passed the following order

dated 19.08.2010:-

“I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and

it has come to my notice that on 26.06.2006 the

workman was provided with all the copies of the

documents filed and relied upon by the management.

It is endorse in the proceedings that he is satisfied

and documents seen with original file. Thus, there is

no force in the contention of the workman that he

was not provided with the copies of the documents.

Enquiry proceedings also reflect that he was not

afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence in

defence. The last enquiry proceeding was conducted

on 19.08.2006. Thereafter, no proceeding was

conducted, if conducted not provided to this

Tribunal. The report was submitted by the enquiry

officer on 20.10.2006. On the last date of the enquiry

proceedings not a single sentence is mentioned

about the opportunity of defence evidence afforded

to the workman. The enquiry report also speaks

about the defence brief but does not speak a single

word about the defence evidence. There is a

substance in the contention of the workman that he

was not afforded the adequate opportunity for

defence evidence by the enquiry officer. It is also

the contention of the workman that he was not

provided with the report of the enquiry. This is

admitted by the management that the report of the

enquiry was not provided with to the workman but

it has been stated that even if the report of the

enquiry was not provided with to the workman, it is

the duty of the workman to prove the prejudice

caused to him for non-supplying of the report.

The management has also filed a certificate

regarding the receiving of some report. This report

was received on 07.11.2007. The punishment to the

workman was awarded on show cause notice issued

to the workman on 04.01.2007 and he was asked to

reply the same within seven days. Thereafter, the

punishment was awarded to the workman even much

before 07.11.2006.

These two contentions of the workman are proved:

(1)

He was not afforded the opportunity for

defence evidence.

(2)

He was not provided with the copy of the

enquiry report.

To make a balance between the operation of the

principle of natural justice and the finality of adjudication,

a new principle has emerged that if the workman pleads

for violation of the principle of natural justice, he has to

prove the prejudice caused to him for non-compliance of

principles of natural justice. In my view, these are such

issues in which it is presumed that prejudice was caused

to the workman. No one can be deprived of his defence

evidence. No one can be deprived to reply the enquiry

report. Non-supplying of enquiry report is bad in law has

been affirmed by the Apex Court in Ramjan’s case. Thus,

enquiry was bad on account of non-providing the

opportunity for defence evidence and for non-supplying

of enquiry report to the workman and the same cannot be

relied upon for awarding the punishment to the workman.

Accordingly, the enquiry proceedings and subsequent

disciplinary proceedings are set-aside being void and

illegal against the principle of natural justice.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3919

It is the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act that

whenever enquiry is held to be void, the Tribunal shall

order for conducting the enquiry afresh. Accordingly

enquiry shall be conducted by the Tribunal itself. The

management of the bank shall lead the evidence first. After

recording the evidence of the management workman will

be provided the opportunity for adducing evidence in

defence. Charge shall remain as such. The status of the

workman during the enquiry proceedings conducted by

this Court shall also remain as such. Parties are directed to

file their respective affidavits and documents for

conducting the enquiry in this Tribunal within 5 weeks

positively. Put up the case on 20.10.2010 for evidence of

the management.”

7.

In view of the above order dated 19.08.2010 the

parties were provided opportunity to lead evidence. The

management in evidence in order to prove the charges

filed affidavit Ex.M1 of Sh. C.R. Dhania branch manager

who also proved documents Ex.M2 to M27. The

management also produced MW2 Surjit Singh, S/o Mast

Ram, branch manager State Bank of India, who tendered

his affidavit Ex.M28 and Sh. S.P. Singh S/o Amar Singh

Chief Manager, State Bank of India as MW3 who tendered

his affidavit M 29 in evidence. All the above three

witnesses were cross-examined by the representative of

the workman. Similarly the workman in defence produced

WW1 Dr. Rajesh Kumar who tendered his affidavit Ex.W4

and workman himself as WW2 who tendered his affidavit

Ex.W1. Both the above two witnesses were cross-examined

by the learned counsel for the management.

8.

Both the parties filed written arguments along with

the respective case laws. On behalf of the workman

following case laws have been filed and relied upon;

1. 2010(2)RSJ 203, Munna Lal Vs. Union of India

and others,

2. 2010(2) RSJ 444 L.I.C. of India Vs. Ram Pal Singh

Bisen.

3. AIR 2000 S.C. page 277 Hardwari Lal Vs. State of

U.P.

9.

The management relied upon the following case laws:

1. 2008(3) RSJ page 15 Roop Chand Verma Vs.

Presiding Officer.

2. 2005(2) RSJ page 542 Mahindra and Mahindra

Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade.

3. 2005 LLR 116 Haldyan Glass Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra

General Kamgar Union.

4. 1997(3) RSJ page 369 P.D.D.C. Ltd. Vs. Kala

Singh

5. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3028 State Bank of India

Vs. T.K. Banerjee.

10.

I have heard the parties, gone through the record

and evidence and also written arguments and case laws

filed by both the parties.

11.

Before this Tribunal, to prove the charges, the

management examined four witnesses. MW1 Shri C.R.

Dhania in his affidavit filed before this Tribunal stated

that the workman (Surinder Pal Singh) was compulsorily

retired with superannuating benefits (Pension or Provident

fund and garatuity as would be due otherwise (under the

Rules and Regulations prevailing at the relevant time) and

without disqualification. MW1 reproduced the charges

level against the workman in his affidavit and stated that

workman replied to the charge sheet and the same was

found to be unsatisfactory and unacceptable. MW2 Sh.

Surjit Singh in his affidavit alleged that he ( Surjit Singh)

used to receive complaints frequently from the customers

about Sh. Surinder Pal Singh Senior Assistant (workman)

who used to say to the customers that the pass book

printer is out of order and usually advised to the customers

to come after a week time, whether the printer is working in

order or not. MW2 Surjit Singh in his affidavit further

stated that on 13.10.2005 Sh. Surinder Pal Singh (Workman)

was drinking since morning and after lunch time when

workman came and sat on his counter MW2 Surjit Singh

observed that the workman could not stand properly while

working on the counter. It was also noticed by MW2 that

Rs. 500/- notes were found on the floor and workman is

not in a position to lift the notes and to keep the same on

the counter. MW2 Surjit Singh with the help of Virender

Kumar Assistant tallied the cash and asked him i.e. Virender

Kumar to transit the business of the customers standing

on the counter. Sh. Virender Kumar performed the job of

Surinder Pal Singh (workman) in the presence of MW2

upto 4P.M., tallied the cash and closed the counter. The

police had already arrived in the branch and took the

workman in their jeep. Sh . S.P.Singh, Chief Manager also

went alongwith the police authorities for medical

examination. It is further stated in the affidavit by MW2

Surjit Singh that he had written a letter dated 14.10.2005

and he confirm the contents of the letter.

12. Sh. S.P. Singh Chief Manager MW3 in his affidavit

alleged that Surinder Pal Singh Senior Assistant was in

the habit of drinking. On 13.10.2005 he drank to great

extent and was misbehaving with the customers while

sitting on the counter. Customers came to the cabin of

MW3 S.P.Singh and advised that workman is heavily

drunk. MW3 asked Sh. Surjit Singh to see what has

happened. Sh. Surjit Singh Deputy Manager immediately

went to the counter of workman and came back to the

cabin of MW3 and told that workman was heavily drunken

and misbehaving with the customers. MW3 himself

rushed to the cabin of workman and asked the workman

whether he has taken alcohal. The workman replied “Aahoo

peeti hai toon jo karrna kar lai”. MW3 S.P.Singh rang up to

the police station and requested them to send some police

persons to get the workman medically examined who was

heavily drunk and creating chaos in the banking hall and

3920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

misbehaving with the customers. It is further stated in the

affidavit by MW3 that within 10 to 15 minutes, two persons

from police came to the bank and took the workman in

their vehicle. MW3 also accompanied them to the police

station in their vehicle and then all went to the civil hospital

Phillaur where the doctor on duty was busy and all had to

wait for about 30 to 45 minutes and the workman was

ultimately examined at 4.30 p.m. Report was delievered to

MW3 and about 5P.M. the workman and MW3 dropped

by the police in front of the branch and workman did not

enter the branch. MW3 further stated in his affidavit that

behaviour of workman was never good, the pass books

were never handed over to the customers politely but

thrown away on their faces and he used to receive 2 to 3

complaints from the customers and MW3 personally used

to pacify the customers. Despite MW3 counselled the

workman many times but workman did not mend his

behaviour rather started creating more trouble day by day.

The workman also tempered with the branch attendance

register at page no.91 for the month of September 2005 for

which he was given memo on 20.10.2005 but the workman

did not reply the same. All the management’s witnesses

were cross examined by the counsel for the workman before

this Tribunal.

13. It is also revealed on the record that Medical Officer

Civil Hospital, Phillaur examined the workman on 13.10.2005

the report of which has been placed on record as Ex.W14

and observed that patient is conscious, co-operative. His

pulse 102 per minute, BP 130/90 Pupils-Dialated and

reacting, smell of alcohol present, over talkative, finger

move test- negative and overall inference – the patient

has consumed alcohol, but is not under its effect at

present.

14.

In rebuttal workman examined WW1 Dr.Rajesh

Kumar. In his affidavit Dr. Rajesh Kumar stated that

Surinder Pal Singh S/o Raj Singh workman visited his clinic

on 12.10.2005 in the evening and was suffering from Lower

Respiratory Track infection and after examination.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar prescribed medicine syrup KANKASAV

20 ml and TAALISHADI CHURAN. KANKASAV syrup

contain alcoholic contents and upon consumption of the

same, it smells like liquor. He also stated that certificate

dated 30.11.2006 was issued by him (Dr. Rajesh Kumar)

on the basis of entries contained in OPD register

maintained by him in the normal course. Dr. Rajesh Kumar

was cross examined by the learned counsel for the

management on 21.2.2011. In cross examination WW1

stated that he has given the certificate dated 30.11.2006

after one year of treatment and prepared the certificate on

the basis of OPD register dated 12.10.2005 ( the witness

was directed to produce the OPD register and cross was

deferred for 21.3.2011). On 21.3.2011 in cross examination

he stated that workman approached him without

prescription for medical certificate before 2/3 days of issue

the medical certificate but he refused as he was ignorance

of the treatment and issued the medical certificate after

searching the record and he has having no record regarding

the medical certificate dated 30.11.2006. The witness

further stated that he does not remembered whether he

had issued any certificate to any other person because he

has no record. A question was put as under to the witness:-

“Question:- Prima Facie it seems that new sheets are

stiched in old cover to prepare the register recently.

( The face of the witness before answering was

trembling ). The witness replied that the register was

prepared and maintained in the year 2005. (It is the

demonnier of the witness recorded during cross

examination of the witness.

15.

In evidence the workman also filed his affidavit

stating that he consumed the medicine prescribed by Dr.

Rajesh Kumar, BAMS on 12.10.2005 and upon

consumption of the syrup it smell like liquor. The workman

further stated that he consumed the medicine after

completing his duty while he was leaving his office after

5 P.M. The Chief Manager enquired from him and workman

replied that he consumed the medicine but Chief Manager

S.P. Singh took him to Civil Hospital Phillaur where he was

examined. No blood or urine sample were taken nor any

other test/examination was conducted and he was asked

to sign a slip, which was signed by the workman.

16.

The workman in his affidavit further stated that on

23.09.2005, he remained present in the branch and not left

the office. The printer provided to him was out of order

and he was busy with the service engineer to get the printer

repaired from 3.30P.M. to 4.30P.M.

17.

The workman further stated in the affidavit that he

had not misbehaved with any body on 15.9.2005 and

16.9.2005 and Gurvinder Singh never visited him. Smt.

Kirpal Kaur visited him for opening account and she was

advised to meet the branch incharge and after sanction

her account was opened.

18.

The workman also stated in his affidavit that on

12.9.2005 he left the branch after completing the office

business after duty hours and there was no disruption in

the normal working of the bank in any manner. When cross

examined by the learned counsel by the management

stated that it is not in his knowledge that customers had

made complaints against him. He stated that he received

three letter dated 19.9.2005, 23.9.2005 and 20.10.2005 from

the bank. He denied that he reported for duty on 13.10.2005

under the influence of liquor and misbehaved with the

customers and any complaint has been made to the branch

manager about his drunken state and misbehaviour. He

also denied that he was taken to Civil Hospital by the

police and he was medically examined. He also denied the

other suggestion of the counsel for the management.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3921

19.

On perusal of all the record it reveals that workman

on 13.10.2005 was got medically examined from the doctors

of Govt. Civil Hospital Phillaur who issued certificate

confirming the consumption of alcohol by the workman.

The contention of the workman is that he consumed

medicine as prescribed by Dr. Rajesh Kumar on 13.10.2005

clearly appears, after thought to cover his consumption

of alcohol on 13.10.2005. The learned counsel for the

management drawn by attention to the reply filed by the

workman on 25.11.2005. In this reply to the charge sheet,

workman nowhere stated about the consumption of

medicine allegedly prescribed by Dr.Rajesh Kumar. The

learned counsel for the management also pointed out the

date of issuance of the medical certificate which is dated

30.11.2006 by Dr. Rajesh Kumar and prescription slip,

submitted during arguments that medical certificate was

issued by Dr. Rajesh Kumar on 30.11.2006 after a lapse of

more than one year and Dr. Rajesh Kumar admitted that

he has no record about the issuance of medical certificate

and in cross examination he has also admitted that he

does not remember whether he has issued any such

certificate to any other person. It is also submitted by the

learned counsel for the management that the medical

certificate issued by Dr. Rajesh Kumar after a lapse of

more than one year has no evidentiary value and it appears

to be fabricated and clearly after thought to cover up the

consumption of liquor on duty and medical examination

conducted on the workman by the doctor of Govt. Hospital

Phillaur who issued certificate on the same date i.e.

13.10.2005. It is also on the record that Sh. Surjit Singh,

Deputy Manager and S.P. Singh, Chief Manager were the

spot witnesses to the behaviour and working of the

workman. Bank Officer called the police and taken the

workman to the hospital for medical examination. The

medical conducted by the government doctor clearly

pointed out the consumption of liquor by the workman on

duty. In the circumstances the certificate issued on

30.11.2006 after more than one year by Dr. Rajesh Kumar

can not be believed and it is held that the charge no.1 that

workman under drunkenness on 13.10.2005 created

disorderly and indecent behavior which affected the bank

image and customer service and this charge stand proved.

20.

As regard charge no.2 is concerned the management

failed to establish that the workman left the branch on

23.9.2005 at 2 P.M. From the record it is established that

the workman was busy to get the printer repaired between

3.30.P.M. to 4.30.P.M. and he was very much present in

the bank at least up to 4.30 P.M. when the service engineer

was repairing the printer. Therefore, the charge no.2 held

not proved.

21.

As regard charge no. 3 is concerned there were

complaints against the workman by Kirpal Kaur and

Gurvinder Singh about misbehaving with them on

15.9.2005 and 16.9.2005. It is revealed from the record that

Gurvinder Singh and Kirpal Kaur visited the branch and

complaint against the workman about his misbehaviour

with the above customers. The contention of the workman

that nothing has happened on the dates 15.9.2005 and

16.9.2005 as there were complaints against the workman

not only from Kirpal Kaur and Gurvinder Singh but also

other customers Kehar Singh and Ashwani Kumar also

made complaints against the workman about the

misbehaviour by the workman with the above customers.

Therefore, charge no. 3 is also stand proved against the

workman.

22.

As regard charge no. 4 is concerned the workman

left the office without tallying the balances and bank books

were not closed in time, it is revealed from the memo served

on the workman on 13.9.2005 by the Chief Manager, State

Bank of India Phillaur that workman left the office on

12.9.2005 without tallying the balances which resulted in

disruption of normal functioning of the branch. The

workman never replied to this memo served to him, virtually

admitting the charge. Therefore, charge no. 4 also stands

proved against the workman.

23.

I have gone through the case laws submitted on

behalf of the workman. The facts and circumstances of

the case being different to the facts and circumstances of

the case laws cited are not applicable to the case in hand.

24.

In view of the discussion made in earlier paras the

charge no.1,3 and 4 stand proved against the workman

and the management failed to prove the charge no.2.

25.

As regard the penalty of dismissal of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits imposed upon

the workman is concerned, the workman created scene in

the office and consumed liquor on duty and police was

called which stand proved from the medical examination

conducted by the doctors of Government Hospital, and

other two charges which relates to misbehavior with the

customers and leaving the office early which are serious

in nature and he was given the punishment of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits which needs no

intervention in any way by this Tribunal as any

misbehaviors and indiscipline in the public office like bank

can not be treated in a casual way which tarnish the image

of the bank. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any

relief whatsoever. The action of the management of State

Bank of India in imposing the penalty of dismissal of

compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits on

workman Surinder Pal Singh is fully justified.

26.

The reference is answered accordingly. Central

Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

21.04.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

3922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1489-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@04@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@150@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014

S.O.

1489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/04/2014.

[No. L-12012/150/2006-IR (B-I)]

SUMTAI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

DATED : 25th APRIL, 2014

Present : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 49/2007

I Party

Sh. D. Gopalakrishna Shetty,

S/o Raghypathy Setty,

Sirigere, Bellary District,

BELLARY.

II Party

The Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Personnel Section,

Region IV, St. Marks’ Road,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

Appearances :

I Party

: Shri V. S. Naik, Advocate

II Party

: Shri A .G. Shivananda, Advocate

AWARD

1.

The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/

150/2006-IR(B-I) dated 01.03.2007 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in declining employment to Shri D.

Gopalakrishna Shetty, Ex-Temporary Messenger,

State Bank of India, ADB Doddaballapur Branch with

effect from 20.06.2001 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?”

2.

On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

49/2007 when notices were issued to both the sides they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and claim statement of the I Party came to be

filed on 27.07.2007 and the counter statement of the II

Party on 08.02.2008.

3.

The I party in his claim statement alleges that he

was appointed as Messenger w.e.f. 05.06.1985 by the II

party and was posted to work at its Sirigere Branch in the

Bellary District where he worked till 1997 and during that

period for about 15 days during January, 1996 he worked

at Bellary Main Branch as per the instructions of his official

superiors and after sometime he was called back to work

at Doddaballapur Branch during 2000-2001. It is further

alleged that the II party which introduced a scheme for

absorption of temporary messengers during the year 1995

called him for interview through letter dated 24.02.1995 to

appear for interview on 08.04.1995 and accordingly he had

appeared for interview but he did not hear anything further

from the II Party but continued to work as a temporary

messenger. He has further alleged during 1996 he worked

for a period of 289 days at Sirigere and Bellary branches of

the II party and was requesting to regularise his services

by absorbing him to the regular cadre of messenger and

that he has worked to an extent of 1579 days during the

year 1985 to 2001 and that he was informed by the Regional

Secretary of the Bank that his name has been included in

the selection list and is wait listed and in that connection

he had also approached the State Bank Staff Union which

also requested the Bank to consider his request to for

absorption in accordance with the scheme prevailing in

the Bank but also his name was not considered. It is

further alleged that he was refused work w.e.f. 19.06.2001

and after waiting for all these days being advised to raise

an Industrial Dispute as regards termination of his service

and also seeking absorption into regular cadre he

approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C),

Bangalore and as the conciliation initiated by him ended

in failure due to adamant attitude of the II party it resulted

in this reference. With these allegations he has prayed to

direct the II party bank to reinstate him as a Messenger on

permanent basis and to extend him all the consequential

benefits including backwages. INTERALIA, the II party

in its Counter Statement contended that I Party had worked

as Temporary Messenger against leave vacancy in few of

its branches like Sirigere Branch in Bellary District, Bellary

Main Branch and at Doddaballapur and he has never

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3923

worked continuously for 240 days in any block of 12

calendar months in any branch and that he is put to strict

proof having worked more than 1579 days during the year

1985 to 2001. It is further contended that it was engaging

temporary employees to work on daily wages prior to 1987

and as there was a long standing demand from the All

India Bank Employees Federation to consider them for

permanent absorption in permanent vacancies, after

deliberations a Bipartite Settlement was entered into on

17.11.1987 under which all the eligible temporary employees

were to be given a chance for being considered for

permanent absorption subject to the terms and conditions

therein subject to terms and conditions modified by

subsequent settlements. In accordance with that

settlement the temporary employees and daily wagers who

were found suitable for permanent appointment were to

be empanelled separately in ABC category as under :

Category A : Those who have completed 270 days

temporary service in any continuous block of 12 calendar

month during the period from 01.07.1975 to 31.07.1988.

Category B : Those who have complete 270 days

temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar

months during the period from 01.07.1975 to 31.07.1988.

Category C : Those who have completed a minimum of

30 days of aggregate temporary service in any calendar

year after 01.07.1975 or a minimum of 70 days aggregate

temporary service in any continuous block of 36 months

during the period from 01.07.1975 to 31.07.1988.

It is further alleged that the I party who had rendered

during the period from 01.07.1987 to 31.07.1988 for a period

of 64 days was placed in Category C and that it absorbed

the persons in the said lists based on seniority and the

vacancies that arouse up to December, 1994 and it came to

be lapsed from December, 1997 and the employee who had

put in 90 days of service was the last employee to be

absorbed from the C Category before the panel lapsed.

Thus several persons who had put in more number of

temporary services and were ranked higher than the I party

could be accommodated as such his claim for absorption

on permanent employment is unsustainable and reference

is liable to be rejected.

4.

With the above pleadings when the II party was

called upon to adduce evidence its learned advocate while

filing the affidavit of Dr. P. M. Amruthnath, Deputy

Manager, HR Section, Zonal Office, St. Mark’s Road,

Bangalore swearing to the facts of the counter statement

examining him on oath as MW 1 got exhibited Xerox copies

of the temporary service put in by the I Party; Xerox copy

of the certificate issued by the Chief Manager dated

14.01.2006 for temporary service and the statement issued

by the Branch Manager, Sirigeri dated 02.12.2006 regarding

number of days worked by the I party and the Xerox copy

of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 22.04.1998 as Ex M-1 to

Ex M-5 respectively. INTERALIA, the learned advocate

appearing for the I party who had got exhibited two

certificates issued by the Branch Manager, Sirigere and

certificate issued by the Doddaballapur Branch as Ex W-1

to Ex W-3 in the cross-examination of MW 1 while filing

the affidavit of I Party swearing to the contents of the

claim statement examining him on oath as WW 1 got

exhibited the letter given to him by the Sirigere Branch

Manager dated 23.06.2003 as Ex W-4.

5.

With the above pleadings and evidence brought on

record the learned advocate appearing for the II Party while

drawing my attention to the Bipartite Settlement the copy

of which is produced at Ex. M-5 the temporary/daily wager

who had worked for a period of 30 days in any calendar

year were to be considered for appointment on Seniority

and as the I Party during one year period had worked for

maximum 64 days did not reach since last person reached

in that category is one who worked for 90 days, therefore,

his claim for absorption or for appointment on permanent

basis is baseless and he is not entitle for such relief.

INTERALIA, the learned advocate appearing for the I party

as per Section 25B of the ID Act a cessation of work not

due to fault of workman cannot be treated as break to

complete 240 days and as admitted by MW 1 the break of

service of I party in between is not due to his fault,

therefore, he is entitle to put on the work as he was as he

is not entitle for regularisation of service.

6.

Since the I Party/WW 1 clearly admits in C Category

list last person to whom the placement was given from the

wait list had worked for 90 days and in that category he

had worked only for 64 days the contention of the II Party

that by the time the period fixed in the Bipartite Settlement

came to an end his number in the wait list did not reach

being not in dispute his claim for absorption or appointment

on permanent basis on the scheme introduced by the II

party for temporary workmen is substantiated and as fairly

his counsel also submitted that he is not entitle for

regularisation of his service the only question that remains

for consideration is whether the II party terminated his

services w.e.f. 19.06.2001 though he had worked

continuously for 240 days in a block period of 12 months.

The I Party in his claim statement alleges that he worked in

Doddaballapur Branch up to 19.06.2001 and thereafter he

was not assigned any work and thereby he was refused

work from that date arbitrarily but he failed to produce any

evidence having worked continuously for 240 days in any

12 months period or from 19.12.2001 being refused work

by the II Party. If at all on 19.06.2001 the bank had refused

him work he would not have kept quite over a period of six

years i.e. till he raised the dispute before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (C), Bangalore in the year 2006. In

other words six years delay in raising the dispute from the

date of alleged date of refusal of work probabilizes that

the II party did not refuse him work in the leave vacancy

from the alleged date i.e. 19.12.2001 and he himself must

3924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

have not gone to work since then and has given a

imaginary date of refusal of work by the II Party. Under

the circumstances, the reference is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, I pass the following.

ORDER

The Reference is Rejected holding that the action of

the management of SBI in declining employment to

Sh. Gopalakrishna Shetty, Ex-Temporary Messenger,

State Bank of India, ADB Doddaballapur Branch is

legal and justified and that he is not entitle for any

relief.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 25th April, 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1490-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LikbZl tSV

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

34@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@20@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2011)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Spice Jet Ltd., and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/05/2014.

[No. L-11012/20/2010-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA, COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 34/2011

Sh. Vikram Arora

Versus

Spice Jet Limited

No. DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-11012/20/2010-IR(CM-I) dated

05.04.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Spice

Jet Ltd., in terminating the services of the workman

Sh. Vikram Arora w.e.f 22.10.2008 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?

On 02.05.2011 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 34/2011 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 Sh. Vikram

Arora not filed claim statement but management in

response to reference filed response wherein it mentioned

as follows:-

1.

That at the very outset it is humbly submitted that

the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous ,

vexatious and fraud and therefore is not maintainable as

no industrial dispute exits with the complaint.

2.

That the workman has not approached the Hon’ble

Conciliation Officer and this Hon’ble Court with clean

hands and has concealed and suppressed material and

true facts. It is submitted that the complaint has resigned

from the management w.e.f 22.10.2008 and all the dues of

the complaint has been paid by the management

satisfactorily along with the payment of Provident Fund.

3.

That this Hon’ble Court does not have the proper

jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the matter as the

complaint does not fall under the definition of “workman”

under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

BRIEF SUBMISSIONS :-

1. That the complaint was appointed as the

“Transport Coordinator” in the services of the

Management vide letter of appointment No. HR/SJ/07/191

dated 02.07.2007, which inter-alia includes detailed terms

and conditions of the appointment, which were duly

accepted by the complainant at the time of joining the

Management. It is submitted that, clause-9 of the

appointment letter provides for termination of services/

cessation of employment, contents of the same are

reproduced herein below for the convenience of this

Hon’ble Tribunal:-

“Termination of Services:

a.

If at any time during your employment you are found

guilty of any act of misconduct or wilful breach of

negligence or dereliction of duty, disobedience of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3925

lawful and reasonable orders and instructions given

to you from time to time or conduct on or off duty

which is prejudicial to the interest, good name or

reputation of the Company, the management may

dismiss you from service or give any lesser

punishment as permissible under law. In addition ,

you shall be liable for all losses and damages to the

company.

b.

Your services can be terminated on either side

without assigning any reason after giving three

months notice in writing or basic salary in lieu

thereof. No such notice will apply in case of

termination arising out of negligence or misconduct.

c.

Upon the Company putting an end to this

appointment with or without notice, for any breach

of rules and regulations or non-observance or any

default on your part, you will not be entitled to any

damage or compensation.

A Copy of the letter of appointment of the complaint

dated 02.07.2007 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A.

2.

That on or round 20.10.2008, the Management

received a complaint from one of its crew members against

the Complainant in respect of charging/collection of

money from them on account of conveyance charges

without any prior permission from or intimation to the

management . It is submitted that the Management hires

transport services of the vendor and all consideration is

paid by the Management to the vendor directly and no

person is authorized to collect money on account of

conveyance charges from the crew members/staff.

3.

That on basis of the said complaint , the management

investigated the matter and it was found that the Complaint

was directly involved in collection of differential

conveyance charges without any permission or direction

from the management . Further, the transport vendor also

confirmed that the he was not aware of nor had he received

any such money from the Complainant. It was also found

out that the Complainant had warned the crew member to

not report any such collections to the Management, failing

which they won’t be provided with transport services. A

copy of the said complaint received from the crew

(employee) is annexed herewith as Annexure-B.

4.

That on 21.10.2008, the Complainant was called to

the corporate office of the Management Company for an

inquiry into his illegal collection of money from the

employees. During the course of inquiry, the Complainant

admitted that he was extending such services to the

employees of the Management at a reasonable price as he

further admitted his misconduct with regard to charging/

collecting money on account of conveyance charges and

not informing the management with respect to the same

and nor obtaining prior permission from the Management.

A copy of the said enquiry report conducted in this regard

is annexed herewith as Annexure-C.

5.

That the complainant indulged in the practice which

was prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the

Management Company and was against the policy of the

Management being misconduct. Accordingly, as per clause -9

of terms of employment, termination order was issued by

the company to the complainant on account of his

misconduct, which was duly acknowledged by the

Complainant. A copy of the said termination order dated

21.10.2008 is annexed herewith as Annexure –D.

6.

That after the receipt of the said termination order,

the complainant pleaded the top management to accept

his resignation for his misconduct as the said termination

order would create intricacies in obtaining another career

opportunities. Based on the request of the Complainant,

the top management revoked the termination order and

accepted his resignation. A copy of Inter Office memo

dated 22.10.2008 in respect of revocation of termination

order is annexed herewith as Annexure –E. A copy of

Resignation Letter is annexed herewith as Annexure-F.

7.

That all the dues of the complainant have been paid

by the company satisfactorily. He has also applied for

withdrawal of his provident fund, which has been

processed by the company on 14.1.2009. A copy of

Employee Clearance Form duly signed is annexed herewith

as Annexure-G.

8.

As an afterthought, complainant filed a complaint

against the HR department of the Management Company

with an ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the

management before the Hon’ble Conciliation Officer /Asst.

Labour Commissioner.

GROUNDS:

A.

That the Central Government vide dated 05.04.2011

erred in holding that an industrial dispute exits

between the employers in relation to the management

and their workman. It is submitted that acting on the

said complaint regarding alleged termination of

services of the complainant and in order to examine

the allegation made in the complaint, the predecessor

of

the

Hon’ble

Conciliation

Officer,

Sh. Harkishan Santoshi, Asst. Labour Commission

(c) visited the office of the management company

on 26.11.2008 to check and verify facts of the

complaint. He completed his enquiry with certain

findings, which are reproduced herein below:-

“(1) Mr. Vikram Arara charged from Cabin Crew

Rs. 100 without approval of the company. This is

illegal collection by Sh. Vikram Arora.

(2) Spice Jet issued terminated order vide office

letter No. S/HR/2008 /EC-2654 dated 21.10.2008 but

on the basis of the request of Mr. Vikram Arora,

Spice Jet have sanctioned resignation of Mr. Vikram

Arora due his future perspective.”

3926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

He was also of the view that there is no need for

further action in this regard. Therefore he closed the

complaint then and there itself. A copy of the said

enquiry report issued by him is annexed herewith as

Annexure –H.

B.

That the matter was referred before the Conciliation

Officer /The Asst. Labour Commissioner and vide

order dated 05.04.2011 the Central Government opine

that industrial dispute exist between employer in

relation to the management and their workman.

Therefore the Central Government referred the said

dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour. Court No.2, New

Delhi.

C.

That till date the workman has not appeared before

the Hon’ble Tribunal.

D.

That this Hon’ble Tribunal does not have

jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present

complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

because the complainant is not a workman , in view

of the nature of his duties and the gross salary drawn

by him while in the service of the Management. It is

most humbly submitted that the Complaint was

functioning as a “Transport Coordinator”, which

role is admittedly supervisory in nature. It is further

submitted that the last drawn gross salary of the

Complainant was Rs. 19,440/- per month. Hence , as

per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the

Complainant is not a workman and as such his

complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is liable

to be dismissed on this ground alone.

E.

That on 01.08.2011 the matter came up for hearing

for the first time and the management duly appeared

before the Hon’ble Tribunal. However , no one

appeared on behalf of workman and the matter was

then adjourned for 12.10.2011 for filing of Statement

of Claim. On 12.10.2011 management again appeared

before the Hon’ble Tribunal and none appeared on

behalf of workman and again the case was adjourned

for 13.12.2011 for filing of Statement of Claim.

Similarly on 13.12.2011, 13.2.2012 and 03.05.2012 the

matter was adjourned because of non appearance

of the workman. It is submitted that till date the

workman has neither appeared before this Hon’ble

Tribunal nor has submitted his Statement of Claim.

Thus , the matter should be dismissed on the said

ground alone.

PRAYER :

In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances,

it is most respectfully submitted that, this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to:

(a)

Dismiss the matter with exemplary cost as false and

frivolous dispute in favour of management and

against the workman.

(b)

Pass strict stricture against the workman for his

conduct and misusing the state machinery; and

(c)

Pass any other order as it may deem fit in the interest

of Justice and equity.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman in

further progress of the case . The proceeding of this case

is not liable to be proceeded further. Hence proceeding of

the case is liable to be dropped and no dispute award is

liable to be passed. Reference is decided accordingly.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 02/04/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1491-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

24@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@83@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2011)

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

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/83/2010-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 24 of 2011

Employer in relation to the management of

P.B. Area of M/S BCCL.

AND

Their workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3927

Present : Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.

For the Workman

: Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 20/3/2014.

AWARD

By Order No.-L-20012/83/2010 IR-(CM-I), dated

07/04/2011 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act,1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Gopalichuk Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Shri Rajendra Bhuia, MCL from the service of the

company vide order dated 16/17.07.2007 is fair and

justified? To what relief the concerned workman

entitled to ?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

02.05.2011. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 20.06.2011. And the management files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 26.06.2013. The point

involved in the reference is that the workman has been

dismissed from his services.

3.

During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

But he has already out of service for 7 years. It is felt to

give another chance to the workman to serve.

4.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But

the workman be kept under probation for a period two

years and his performance report be given to the under

signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not

arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1492-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

79@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@289@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 79/1995) of

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

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-12012/289/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 79 of 1995

Employers in relation to the management of

Khas Kusunda Colliery M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the Workman

: Sri R.K. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated. 31/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/289/1994-IR (C-1), dated

14/07/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. BCCL, Kusunda Area No.VI in relation to Khas

Kusunda Colliery in dismissing from service the

workman, Shri Krishna Das Coal Cutter w.e.f. 7.6.89

is justififed ? If not, what relief workman concerned

is entitled to ?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

18.07.1995. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. The workman files their written statement on

26.07.1995. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 22.04.1996.

3928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

The short point involved in the case is that the

workman was dismissed, for remaining long absence on

work place on 07.06.1989. During the hearing of the case it

is held that, the departmental enquiry held fair and proper

and the said decision of the court, remained unchallenged.

4.

In the meantime the workman has died and his legal

representative are substituted. Since the workman already

died, and there is no documentary prove that the workman

was suffering from leprosy from 1983 to 1989, It can not

be said that his absence had any reasonable ground.

5.

Considering the fact and circumstance of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of M/s. BCCL,

Kusunda Area No. VI of Khas Kusunda Colliery in

dismissing from service of Shri Krishna Das coal cutter

w.e.f. 07.06.1989 is justified. Now his dismissal was justified.

Hence he is not entitled to get any reliefs.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1493-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

59@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@46@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2003) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/46/2003-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 59 OF 2003

PARTIES : The Vice President,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path, Dhanbad.

Vs

General Manager,

Kusunda Area No. VI of

M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/Union: Mr . C. Prasad,

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. U.N. Lal,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 4th March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/46/2003-IR(C-I) dt. 08.07.2003.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Godhur

Colliery under Kusunda Area No.VI, M/s. BCCL in

not getting medical examination of Sri Ram Swarup

Bhar, Khoota Mistry done from Apex Medical Board

for being declared medically unfit before his

retirement on 1.8.2002 is justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/46/2003-IR(C-I)

dt. 08.07.2003 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 59 of

2003 was registered on 29th July, 2003 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents .The

workman and the O.P./Management through both their

Lawyers appeared in, and contested the case.

2.

The case of sponsoring Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor

Sangh for workman Ram Swarup Bhar, Khoota Mistry, is

that, he was a permanent workman of Godhur Colliery under

Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL. He had an acute paralytic

attack, rendering him too immovable on 10.01.2001. He

was referred to the Medical Board as per the Management’s

letters No. 5272 dt. 27.11.2001 and BCCL/CHS/MB/2002/176

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3929

dt.15.1.2002, but it was intentionally delayed by the

Management and the workman was also not called by the

Medical Board, and not sending him to the Medical Board

was illegal, as he is a person of the Scheduled Castes had

been suffering for more than one and half year. At last, the

Industrial Dispute was raised on 15.1.2002 though during

the conciliation, the Management had accepted the real

facts .The A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad had taken the complete

file. The failure of the conciliation resulted in the reference

for adjudication. He was prematurely superannuated on

21.08.2002 instead of his superannuation due on 31.8.2002.

3.

The Union concerned in its rejoinder for the

workman has specifically denied the allegations of the

O.P./Management, alleging that the workman who had been

completely paralyzed for another six months or beyond

one year, was not paid further payment from the welfare

found as per the NCWA.The workman ought to have been

medically declared unfit in view of his complete paralytic

without hope for survival. The workman expired after 21

days of his retirement. The Management was entirely

responsible for intentionally not declaring the workman

medically unfit on account of his inability to move, and of

being at the verge of death. The action of the Management

is unsatisfied.

4.

Whereas with categorical denials, the pleaded case

of the O.P./Management is that in fact, the workman was a

permanent employee of Godhur Colliery working as

Prop.Mazdoor.On his paralytic attack, he was referred to

the Medical Board for his due examination. The Medical

Board had justified his sickness from 10.02.2002 for his

paralysis. As per clause 6.4.2. (a) of the NCWA VI, the

workman was paid 50% of his basic pay,VDA and SDA

due to him on that ground during the period of his absence

for six months from 20.02.2001 to 18.8.2001 during his

employment period. The Medical Board had also observed

for Medical examination of the incumbent after 3 months

under treatment at the Central Hospital, Dhanbad, for

further treatment. The workman case was also referred to

the Apex Medical Board along with his AMB-1 Format

received duly filed in and complete in all respect as per the

letter No.871 dt.16.5.2002. Meanwhile, he retired on 1.8.

2002 at his 60 years of age. He served the company up to

the last date of his service. The Management had taken all

steps for payment of “Khoraki” following the Medical

Board’s report, and had also referred his case to the Apex

Medical Board for his examination. Thus the action of the

management of Godhur Colliery is just, fair and proper.

The Management in its rejoinder specifically denied

the allegations of the workman, and stated that the

Management had provided all facilities and benefits

according to the provisions of the NCWA for free

treatment, 6 months Khoraki, and also referred his case to

the Apex Medical Board on his application in AMB-1

Format, but meanwhile, he superannuated.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5.

In the instant reference, WWI Awadesh Bhar son of

Late workman Ram Swarup Bhar for the union, and MWI

Sanjay Kr.Ghosh, Sr.Manager (Pers.),Godhur & Kusunda

Colliery for the Management have been respectively

examined.

Mr. Chandrika Pd.,Learned Advocate for the Union/

workman, as per his written argument has to submit as the

evidence of WWI Awadhesh Bhar son of Late workman

Ram Swarup Bhar that his father Late workman during the

tenure of his service as “Khoota Mistry” at Godhur Colliery

had acute paralysis, so he was hospitalized in the Central

Hospital,Saraidhela, and was also paid 50% of his basic

Pay,V.D.A & S.D.A for it upto six months from 20.2.2001 to

18.8.2001 under clause 6.4.2(a) NCWA VI, and the admitted

evidence of MWI Sanjay Kumar Ghosh discloses that as

per the Project Officer’s letter dt.9/10.11.2001` (Ext.W.2)

workman Ram Swarup Bhar was given the opinion of the

Apex Medical Board to him for his treatment at the Central

Hospital, Dhanbad,for three months, thereafter for his

presence before the Apex Medical Board for re-

examination, just as the Ext.W.1, the photocopy of the

Medical Supdt, M.B.’s letter dt.9.10.2001 to Dy.C.M.E./

Agent of the colliery with regard to the subject : Medical

Board for “Alternate job” and for his appearance on

19.10.2001 before the medical Board, all these clearly

indicate that the Management was reluctant by one pretext

or other to get him declared medically unfit before his

retirement on 01.08.2002 so as to deprive his son (now

substituted petitioner) of the benefit to him as the

dependent son, as such, the action of the management

has been alleged to be unjustified.

Whereas adversely contended by Mr.U.N.Lal,

Learned Adv. for the O.P./Management is that the workman

was Khoota (Prop) Mazdoor, not Khoota Mistry in Godhur

Colliery under Kusunda Area No.6 as evident from his

Service Excerpt (its photocopy – Ext.M.1),since he had

got paralysis in the month of Feb, 2001, he was paid 50%

“Khoraki” of his wages by the management from

20.02.2001 to 18.08.2001 for six months as per clause 6.4.2.

(a) of the NCWA VI thereafter, on his medical examination

dt.19.10.2001 by the Apex Medical Board (Ext.M.2) the

workman was found entitled to his treatment of the

sickness for three months; and after three months, the

case of the workman was again referred to the Apex Medical

Board for review with the Format AMBI duly filled up by

him as per the Office Letter No.16.5.2002, but meanwhile

the workman at his 60 of age retired from his service w.e.f.

01.08.2002 as per hid aforesaid Service Excerpts as also

replied by the Management on 19.1.2002 (Ext.M.3) before

the ALC(C),Dhanbad, as stated by MWI .The Learned

Advocate for the Management submits that the workman

was not declared medically unfit before his retirement, as

it was in the process of his reference by the Management

3930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the Apex Medical Board, though once earlier the

workman was medically examined by the Apex Medical

Board which had already fixed for his review after three

months of his examination. It is an acknowledged fact that

as per the provisions of the NCWA, the Management does

not provide any employment to a legitimate dependent of

the workman unless and until the workman is medically

declared unfit.

On perusal and consideration of the materials as

adduced by both the parties, it stands beyond dispute

that the workman after his paralysis was given his six

months Khoraki allowance for the aforesaid period on the

report of the Central Hospital, Dhanbad; and the Apex

Medical Board after the medical examination of the

workman had recommended for his medical examination

after further three months of his treatment at Central

Hospital, Dhanbad, as per the Apex Medical Report

dt.19.10.2001 (Ext.W.1), and the documents of the workman

were also sent to the Apex Medical Board as per the letter

dt.16.5.2002, meanwhile, he retired from August, 2002

according to his date of birth as recorded in his service

Excerpt.

Under these circumstances, it is prima facie appears

that it is absolutely wrong to allege the negative action of

the Management in getting medical examination of

workman Ram Swarup Bhar done by the Apex Medical

Board for declaring medically unfit before his retirement

on 1.8.2002, rather there seems utmost always positive

attempt to get it done so, but in process of his reference,

he retired duly from his service, and thereafter the workman

expired on 22.9.2002 as per his Death Certificate, so his

son was substituted in his place. Hence neither the

workman was nor his son Awadhesh Bhar is entitled to

any relief .The Award accordingly responded.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1494-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

09@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@108@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2007)

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

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

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/108/2006-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

REFERENCE NO. 09 OF 2007

PARTIES : The Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

E.J. Area of M/s BCCL Bhowra, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/108/06.IR (CM-I)

dt.06.2.2007.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. Pintu Mandal,

workman/union

Union Representative

On behalf of the

: Mr. U. N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 6th March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on the under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. No.

L-20012/108/06.IR (CM-I) dt.06.2.2007.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Amlabad

Project of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Moti Bhuia,

M/Loader from the services of the company w.e.f.

1.12.2003 is just and legal? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/108/06.IR (CM-

I) dt.06.2.2007 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 9 of

2007 was registered on 20th February, 2007 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3931

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents .The

workman and the O.P./Management through both their

Lawyers appeared in, and contested the case.

2.

The case of sponsoring Janta Mazdoor Sangh for

workman Moti Bhuia is that he was a permanent employee

as M/Loader of Amlabad Project of M/s. BCCL. He was

satisfactorily serving the Management. But due to his

sickness, he could not report for duty on 15.2.2003, though

he had informed the Management of his sickness through

his application 17.2.2003 for granting his sick leave. When

he did not recover from his sickness, he had again submitted

an application dt.15.9.2003 for sick leave. But his both

applications for it were not responded by the Management.

He was under the treatment of Dr. Alok Kumar for bone

T.B. from 15.2.2003, and was declared medically fit by the

Doctor for resumption of duty w.e.f. 21.10.2003.After

recovery, when he along with Medical Certificate of the

Doctor reported for his duty on 24.10.2003, but the

Management did not allow him to resume his duty. At the

approach of the Union to the Mamagment, it was verbally

informed of the dismissal of the workman as per dismissal

letter dt. 25.11/1.12.2003.Thereafter the representation of

the workman for his reinstatement was also unconsidered

by the Management. Lastly, the Industrial Dispute was

raised before the Conciliation Officer, but the same due to

adamant attitude of the Management failed, resulted in

the reference for adjudication. Since the workman was not

issued any charge sheet, any notice of enquiry, and second

Show cause, nor publication of any enquiry notice, the ex-

parte enquiry was not fair, proper, rather contrary to the

the principles of natural justice. The dismissal of the

workman by the agent, below the rank of the Appointing

Authority, is illegal as well as contrary to the provision of

clause 27.2.6 of the Certified Standing Orders of

M/s. BCCL.The workman is entitled to reinstatement with

full back wages.

The Union for the workman in its rejoinder has

categorically denied all the allegations of the O.P./

Management, and stated that the workman was appointed

by the G.M.of Sijua Area as per the appointment letter

dt.14.12.2000.

3.

The case of the O.P./Management is that workman

Moti Bhuia was appointed as Minor/Loader at Amlabad

Project on 4.10.2001 as the son of Smt. Bindeshwari Devi,

Ex-Wagon Loader, under VRS (F) Scheme. He was charge

sheeted for his unauthorized habitual absentism from

15.2.2003 as per the charge sheet dt.16.5.2003 under clause

26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company.

Despite sending him the copy of charge sheet on his home

address also, the workman did not reply to it, so the

Disciplinary Authority decided to hold the enquiry. After

the appointment of the Enquiry Officer as well as the

Presenting Officer as per the Order No.BCCL/2003 the

Notice of the enquiry dt.9/10.6.2003 was issued for the

enquiry on 27.6.2003 at Amlabad Project, but the workman

never appeared. The enquiry was proceeded and held

exparte.The charge of habitual absentee was fully proved

as per the finding and report of the Enquiry Officer. His

past attendance 30 and 75 days in the last two years 2001

and 2002 respectively were also seen. Even the 2nd Show

Cause Notice was also issued to him with a copy of the

enquiry report but no response on his part to it. The

Enquiry Officer proposed for imposition of dismissal

penalty which was approved by the General Manager,

E.J.Area.The Agent of the Project concerned issued him

the order of his dismissal with immediate effect as per the

dismissal letter dt. 25. 11.03/1.12.2003. So, the action of the

Management of Amlabad Colliery in dismissing the

workman from service w.e.f. 1.12.2003 is just, fair and quite

reasonable.

The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

specifically denied all the allegations of the workman,

stating that the workman did not care for being punctual

and regular since his appointment just as his willful

reluctance in response to the charge sheet and Notices. It

has also been sought the permission to adduce its

evidence, in case the enquiry is found unfair.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4.

In the instant case, on the acceptance of the

domestic enquiry by Mr. Pintu Mandal, the Union

Representative for the workman, the Tribunal as per its

Order No.16 dt.07.12.2011 has upheld the enquiry as fair,

proper and in accordance with the natural justice. In result,

it came up for direct hearing of arguments of both the

parties on merits.

Mr. Pintu Mandal the Union Representative for the

workman has submitted that factually the workman

absented form his duty w.e.f. 15.2.2003 due to his sickness

with due intimation to the Management, there is no

misconduct of the workman under clause 25.1.2 as stated

in the charge sheet (Ext.M.5) as the Certified Standing

Order has no such clause; and that the Agent, lowerer in

rank than the G.M., has no authority to dismiss the

workman, as he was appointed as per the appointment

letter dt.5.9.2000 issued by the General Manager; moreover,

in view of harshness in dismissal of the workman, a lenient

view be taken.

Whereas the emphatic contention of Mr. U.N. Lal,

Learned Counsel for the O.P./Management, is that despite

earlier punishment with “strong note of warning” to the

workman for his past conduct of unauthorized absence as

per the Management’s letter dt. 04/.10.2.2003. (Ext.M.4),

he could not improve in his duty/attendances so the

present penalty of his dismissal as per the dismissal order

dt.25.11/1.12.2003 (Extt.W.5=M-9) for his misconduct of

absentism is quite just, fair and reasonable as per the

provision of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company.

But the contention of Mr. Lal about his earlier such

3932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

misconduct being unpleaded is in admissible. So far as

the plea of Mr. Mandal, the Union Representative, in

regard to the mismention of clause 25.1.1. in the instant

charge sheet (Ext.M.5) is concerned, it is also untenable,

as the charge sheet substantially refers to ‘habitual/late

attendance or willful or habitual absent from your duty

without sufficient causes” as laid down under clause 26.1.1

of the Company’s Certified Standing Order.

On perusal and consideration of all the materials of

both the parties as available on the case record, I find that

workman Moti Bhuia was working as Miner Loader at

Amlabad Project at the relevant time, but he had

unauthorizedly absented from his duty w.e.f. 15.2.2003,for

which he was charge sheeted. Out of both the alleged

applications dt. 17.2.2003 and 15.9.2003 (Ext.W.3 & 3/1

respectively) of the workman, the former one unrelates to

his pleaded case of treatment by Dr. Alok Kumar for bone

TB. He failed to justify his reasonable case for absentism.

Despite the notice of the enquiry dt.9/10.6.03 (Ext.M.6),

when he did not present in the enquiry, it resulted in an ex-

parte proceeding against the workman. But the O.P./

Management has no proof of second Show Cause Notice

to the workman prior to awarding him the dismissal

punishment for his aforesaid absentism. So the dismissal

of the workman appears to be not only harsh but also

disproportionate to the nature of his misconduct of

absentism. It is liable to be set aside. He does need a relief

under Sec.11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

In result, in the terms of the reference it is, hereby,

ORDERED

That the Award be and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of Amlabad Project of M/s BCCL

in dismissing Sri Moti Bhuia from the services of the

Company w.e.f. 1.12.2003 is quite unjust and

illegal.Therefore,the workman is entitled to his

reinstatement in the services of the company, but without

back wages. The O.P./Management is directed to

implement the Award within one month from the date of its

receipt following its publication in the Gazette of India by

the Government of India. Let its copies one Soft and one

Hard of the Award be forwarded to the Ministry of Labour

& Employment, New Delhi, for the needful.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1495-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

51@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@14@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2012)

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

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

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/14/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 51 of 2012

PARTIES: The Secretary.

Rastriya Koyla Mazdoor Union,

KDH Project, N K Area,

PO : Dakra Ranchi

Vs.

The Project Officer,

KDH Project, N.K. Area of

M/s. CCL, Dakra, Ranchi

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 27th March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/

14/2012-I R (CM.1) dt.01.08.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Rastriya Koyla Mazdoor

Union for payment of OT Arrears on revised wage

of NCWA-VI to workmen of KDH Project under NK

Area of M/s. CCL, is legal and justified? To what

reliefs are the workmen concerned entitled?”

2.

None appeared for the Union Representative/

workman nor any written statement with any document

filed on behalf of the Union/workmen despite two Regd.

Notices dt. 6.9.2012, 17.12.2013 issued to the Secretary of

the Union concerned on his address noted in the reference.

But Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./

Management is present.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3933

On perusal of the case record, it stands clear that

the present Reference—Schedule relates to the demand

of the Union concerned for the payment of O.T.Arrears on

revised wage of NCWA-VI to workmen of KDH Project

under N.K.Area of M/s CCL without any list. Besides it is

also apparent from the record that Shri Shyam Sunder

Kumar, the Secretary of the Union, R.K.M.U., K.D.H, and

N.K.Area by filing a petition under his signature has

expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the case on

the ground of non-availability of the documents essential

for it. The copy of the petition was also served upon

Mr.Verma, the Ld. Adv. for the O.P./Management on 6th

Feb., 2014 it was filed by the Secretary.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find there is no

Industrial Dispute existent between both the

parties.Therefore, no Dispute Award is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1496-—vkS|ksfxd vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2012) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@1@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.52/2012)

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

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

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

workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/

2014.

[No. L-20012/1/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 52 of 2012

PARTIES : The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Hirapur, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager,

Mugma Area of ECL,

Mugma Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/1/2012-IR (CM-I)

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/

1/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 17.8.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Lakhimata Colliery of M/s ECL in not promoting Sri

R.P. Sharma in the post of Sr.Medical Dresser (when

he has been working as Dresser since 1983) is fair

and justified? To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?”

2.

Neither any Representative for Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union, Hirapur, nor workman R.P. Sharma appeared nor

written statement along with any document filed on his

behalf in spite of three Regd. notices having been issued

to the Secretary, concerned on his address noted in the

reference itself. But Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.Advocate for

O.P./Management of Mugma Area of ECL, Dhanbad is

present.

On perusal of the case record, it clearly indicates

that the present Reference relates to an issue about the

promotion of the workman to the post of Sr. Medical

Dresser, but none of the Union and the workman appeared

and filed any written statement with the documents for

which it has been all along pending since 26.12.2012. The

Union Representative as well as the workman by his

conduct appears to be reluctant in contesting the case

Under these circumstances, the reference is closed as no

Industrial Dispute existent; accordingly it is passed an

order of No Dispute Award.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1497-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

146@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@106@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

3934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/05/2014.

[No. L-20012/106/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

REFERENCE NO. 146 OF 1999.

PARTIES : The Organizing Secretary,

NCWC, Hirapur, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

Kusunda Area of

M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. R. K. Mukherjee,

Workman/Union

Ld. Advocate,

On behalf of the

: Mr. S. N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th Feb, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/

106/98-IR(C-I) dt. 19.2.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda

Area No. VI of BCCL in not providing employment

to Sham Bai W/o Sri Harinaryan Dhobi, Wagon

Loader of Kusunda Colliery is justified? If not, what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/106/98-IR(C-I)

dt.19.2.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 146

of 1999 was registered on 8th March,1999 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through both their

Lawyers appeared in , and contested the case.

2.

The case of workwoman Sham Bai W/o Harinaryan

Dhobi as sponsored by the NCWC, Water Board Colony,

Hirapur, Dhanbad is that she was a permanent employee,

and working as a wagon loader at Kusunda Colliery till

middle of the year 1976; on account of death of her Mother-

in-law, she had gone her native place on leave for one

month, she could not comeback on duty on time. When

she returned on duty, the Management did not allow to

join her duty. At her best effort to know the actual fact,

she found that one fake and imposter lady named as Sham

Bai wife of Budh Ram had been allowed by the

Management to work in her place. The Colliery Office of

the Management had taken her all relevant documents:

Identity Card and others from her for the enquiry, but the

documents were never returned to her. All the relevant

documents/papers related to the employment of the

workwoman lying in Kusunda Colliery Office were

changed beyond her knowledge just to deny her rightful

right in order to illegally induct fake Sham Bai by

impersonating. The Chief of Security, H.Qr, Surakasha

Bhawan, Dhansar of M/s. BCCL after due enquiry into it

submitted his report as per his letter No.BCCL/C(S)/CR/

Impersonation 95/253 dt.5.5.1995 to the Director

(Personnel), BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad, that the

alleged Sham Bai wife of Budh Ram who was allowed to

work in place of the present workwoman was an imposter

impersonating her in collusion with the officials of Kusunda

Colliery Office. The fact was accepted by the Management

in their comment dt.30.05.1995 as per letter no. A 6/P-4/

ALC/95 during the conciliation proceeding. On the enquiry

report of the Chief of Security, fake Sham Bai was charge

sheeted, and thereafter, was dismissed; even thereafter,

the concerned workwoman was not illegally and

unreasonably allowed by the Management to join her duty,

despite her several times request for permission to join he

duty. She could not join her duty due to the culpable fault

of the management which was itself an unfair labour

practice. At last, the industrial dispute raised by her

through the union failed due to non-cooperative attitude

of the Management, resulting in the reference for an

adjudication. The action of the Management is violative

of the principles of natural justice as that of the Articles

14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The demand of

workwoman is legal and justified.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3935

4.

Whereas in challenge to its maintainability the case

of the employer/Management is that no employer and

employee relationship exists until wrongly named Shyam

Bai is corrected as Sham Bai by the Ministry in the instant

case. Besides, the female claiming herself as wife of one

Harinarayan Dhobi is trying her best to get an employment

in the BCCL on the ground that she is the real Sham Bai.

One Sham Bai W/o Budh Ram working in the Kusunda

colliery was imposter, so she was dismissed from the

services of the Company on the basis of the documentary

evidence. The Writ Petition CWJC No.1179/1997(R) filed

by Smt.Sham Bai before the High Court at Ranchi Bench

was also dismissed. All the Government functionaries, i.e.,

Pub.Girievance Cell, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

have examined the issue, but Smt. Sham Bai could not

prove her identity. The industrial dispute was raised by

the Organizing Secretary, NCWC before the

A.L.C.(C),Dhanbad, as per his letter dt.9.1.95 regarding

her employment as wife of Harinarayan Dhobi, the Wagon

Loader. The claim of Smt.Sham Bai for employment on

compassionate ground as wife of aforesaid Wagon Loader

Harinarayan Dhobi is baseless and false. So the action of

the Management in not providing employment to her on

compassionate ground is justified.

5.

The words “on compassionate ground and the name

of workwoman and “on compass Shyam Bai as stated in

the schedule to the instant reference, by striking out the

former, has been corrected as Sham Bai W/o

Sri Harinaryan Dhobi, Wagon Loader of Kusunda Colliery

as per the Order No.23 dt.14.6.2006 of the Tribunal in

pursuance of the Corrigendum Letter dt.24.6.2003 under

No.L-20012/106/98-IR (C-I) of the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6.

In the instant reference, MW1 Ghanshyam

Pd.Singh,the Service holder of and for the Management,

whereas WW1 Sham Bai ,the workwoman herself w/o Late

Hari Narayan Dhobi and WW2 Krishna Deo Pd.Yadav,then

Medical Clerk of East Basuriya Colliery Dispensary for

the Sponsoring Union have been respectively examined.

Mr.R.K.Mukherjee,Learned Advocate for the union/

workwoman concerned wife of Sri Harinaryan Dhobi, was

an illiterate wagon Loader in Kusunda Area No.VI of

M/s. BCCL from 1971 to 1976, and in the latter year, she

had gone to her village on account of death of her mother-

in-law, after taking leave from the Management on her

applications; on returning from her village, when she went

to join her duty, the Management did not allow her to

resume her duty, rather assured her to get her duty later

on, and the Management took her Identity Card, directing

her to come for duty after 15 days ; whenever she used to

go to resume her duty after 15 days or one month for two

years as per directions of the Management, she learnt that

one Khikh Bai wife of Budharam, resident of Village:

Barbhatta, Distt: Raipur adjacent to her District Bilaspur

(M.P.) impersonating her by her name Sham Bai, had got

engaged as a wagon Loader in Nayadih, Kusunda Colliery;

on the complain of the present workwoman to the

Management against aforesaid Khikh Bai and Shri Babu

Ram the Clerk of the Management, Colonel S.S.Roy ( the

Security Officer) after due enquiry into it, as also enquired

by the Koyala Bhawan submitted his enquiry report ( its

photocopy Ext.W.1) about the false engagement of

aforesaid Khikh Bai, Khikh Bai was stopped from working,

despite several representations by the Union as well as

by her, the workwoman real Sham Bai W/o Hari Narayan

Dhobi was not allowed her employment by the O.P./

Management; moreover, Mr. R.K. Mukherjee, the Learned

Counsel for the Union has stressed over the evidence of

MW1 under his para 5 & 6 corroborative to the case of

aforesaid real workman.

Whereas the contention of Mr.S.N.Ghosh,Learned

Counsel for the O.P./Management is that petitioner Sham

Bai of the case has miserably failed to prove herself as the

real workwoman W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi working as a

Wagon Loader at Kusunda Colliery, to file her any identity

and any paper, nor she has the proof of her transfer from

Nayadih Kusunda Area to Dhansar,or of taking her Identity

Card and relevant document by Babu Ram, the Official of

the Management from her, rather the Writ Petition No.1179/

97(R) filed by her was dismissed by Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal

as per the Order dt.25.11.1997 in lack of proof of her identity

as real Sham Bai. It is also stressedly contended by

Mr.Ghosh that consequent upon the dismissal of another

lady Sham Bai W/o Budh Ram as an imposter on 6.5.97

based on the enquiry report of Col.S.S.Rai,the Chief of

Security,BCCL,the Union has tried to introduce this Sham

Bai W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi as the real workwoman in the

case. I disagree with presentation of unpleaded facts for

the O.P./Management.

7.

On the meticulous study and consideration of the

materials as adduced by both the parties available on the

case record, I find the important facts as under:

(i)

Present workwoman Sham Bai W/o Hari Narayan

Dhobi, who had worked as Wagon Loader in

Kusunda Area No.VI of BCCL from 1971 upto 1996

is the real Sham Bai W/o aforesaid Hari Narayan

Dhobi.

(ii)

It is also indisputable that in the year 1996, the

workwoman had gone to her village on her

authorized leave due to the death of Mother-in-law,

and on her return from her village, when she went to

join her duty, Ram Babu, the Clerk of the Management

took her documents such Identity card from her,

and directed her to get her duty after 15 days or one

month; thus, she was kept on being denied the

resumption of her duty by the Management.

3936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

It appears no dispute that on the complain of the

present workwoman against Khikhi Bai imposter in

her name and Babu Ram Dusadh @ Ram Babu, the

Section Clerk of the Managment, Khikhi Bai

impersonating Sham Bai as W/o Budh Ram was

dismissed from the service after the enquiry report

of Col. S. S. Roy (Ext.W.1) ,the Chief of Security and

also enquired by the Management.

(iv)

Thereafter, despite the several representations of

the union concerned to all Authorities of the

Management including the D.C., Dhanbad in the

year 1995 to 1997 (Extt.W.2/2 and 2/3 series

respectively with objection) and the present

workwoman’s application dt.17.4.1996 to the Dy.

Commissioner (Ext.W.3), the real present workwoman

Sham Bai W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi as also asserted

by the Police Report dt. 30.07.1993 to the A.D.M.

Legal Section, Dhanbad, was not allowed by the

Management to resume her duty for the reasons

best known to the O.P./Management. The very

malafide fraudulent activities of Sri Babu Ram, the

Loading Clerk of the Management towards the

illiterate and innocent lady workwoman have badly

and horribly deprived her of resumption of her duty

as Wagon Loader in the Kusunda Area of the

Management which amounted to irreparable loss to

her.

In view of the aforesaid crystal clear findings, the

argument of Mr. S. N. Ghosh, the Learned Counsel for the

O.P./Management does not appear to be reasonable at all

as contrasted with that of Mukherjee. In result, it is, in the

terms of the reference hereby,

ORDERED

That the action of the Management of Kusunda Area

No.VI of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment , i.e.,

factually resumption of her duty to Smt.Sham Bai W/o

Hri Narayan Dhobi – the Wagon Loader of Kusunda

Colliery is not only quite unjustified, but also quite illegal.

Since the innocent, illiterate, real workwoman Sham Bai

W/o Hari Narayan Dhobi as the Wagon Loader has been

along sitting idle for long time due to the illegal

victimization of Sri Babu Ram, the staff concerned of the

Management, she is entitled to reinstatement in her service

with her full back wages, if not superannuated, otherwise

to it with all her retiral benefits due to her, were she in her

service. The O.P./Management is strictly directed to

implement the Award within one month from the receipt of

its copy, following its publication by the Government of

India in the Gazette. Let the copies – one Soft and one

Hard of the award be sent to the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, for needful.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1498-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12 dk

2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (12/2010)

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. SCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of April, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 12/2010

Between :

Sri Senigarapu Sadanandam,

S/o Mallaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur (P) Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad District.

2.

The Dy. CME,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

IK-1 incline,

Srirampur (P) Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad District.

….Respondents

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3937

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana &

K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

P. Vijaya Laxmi, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri

Senigarapu Sadanandam, under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as

L.C.I.D. No. 12/2010 and notices were issued to the parties.

2.

Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal

from service vide order No. SRP(P)/PIR)/35.A/01/999 dated

9.4.2001 by the Respondent without following the

procedure, seeking for reinstatement with all consequential

benefits.

3.

When the matter came up for filing of counter and

documents by Respondents, Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner filed memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalat and

the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable

settlement.

4.

While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo

seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that

the management was kind enough to offer employment to

him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that

he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given

circumstances, the matter has been called to the regular

file from Lok Adalath.

5.

Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.

6.

In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 10th day

of April, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1499-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65 dk

2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@123@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 65/2012) of

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

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 12/05/2014

[No. L-22012/123/2012-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 24th day of March, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 65/2012

Between :

The President (Sri R. Kashiramulu),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

H. No. 3-5-247/3, Azmathpura,

Karimnagar (A.P.)

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally,

Warangal District – 506 169

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana &

K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : Nil

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/123/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 25.9.2012

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of

3938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli

Area, Bhupalapalli, Warangal Dist., in terminating

the services of Sri Kandula Rajaiah, Ex-Coal Filler,

KTK-2 Inc., of Bhupalapalli Area, Warangal Dist.,

with effect from 1.11.2007 is justified or not? To

what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 65/2012 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

The case stands posted for filing of counter

statement by Respondent to 24.3.2014.

3.

At this stage, counsel for Petitioner filed a memo on

24.3.2014 seeking permission to withdraw the Petitioner’s

claim stating that the management offered employment to

the workman Sri Kandula Rajaiah.

4.

In the circumstances, recording the said memo, a

‘Nil’ Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 24th

day of March, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1500-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 131 dk

2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O.1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad

(Ref. No. 131/2006) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL,

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 21st day of April, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 131/2006

Between :

Sri Asam Srinivas,

S/o Late Posham,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RG-I Area, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

2.

The Superintendent of Mines/Colliery Manager,

GDK-6B Incline,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

….Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana &

K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This petition has been filed by Sri Asam Srinivas,

who worked as coal filler at GDK-6B Incline of the

respondent company, invoking Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act,

1947 seeking for declaring that the order No. P.RG.1/32A/

3193 dated 24.5.2001 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal

and arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently

directing the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3939

service duly granting all consequential benefits such as

continuity of service back wages and other attendant

benefits.

2.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 10.10.1987.

On satisfactory performance he was regularized and

promoted as coal filler on 12.1.1995. He continued to

perform his duties to the best of his ability. While so, he

was served with the charge sheet dated 1.2.2000 alleging

that he was frequently remaining absent from duty during

the year 1999 and thus he committed misconduct under

company’s Standing Orders No.25(25). He submitted his

explanation on 20.3.2000 explaining the reasons for his

inability to be regular to his duties during the year 1999.

But, without considering the same an enquiry was

conducted that too without giving proper opportunity to

him. Basing on such pre-determined enquiry, enquiry

officer held the charges as proved. Petitioner was

dismissed from service with effect from 28.5.2001 vide

office order dated 24.5.2001. On account of his ill-health

and family problems Petitioner was unable to attend his

duties regularly during 1999 and he explained the same in

his explanation and also during the enquiry but in vain.

Inspite of his pleading that he will attend to the duty

regularly in future and without any absence, he was

dismissed from service. The said action on the part of the

respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles

of natural justice. The whole enquiry was conducted in a

mechanical and routine manner with a pre-determined

intention somehow or other dismiss the petitioner from

service. Procedure of the enquiry was not explained to

him to enable to insist for marking documents on his behalf

to establish his pleas. No opportunity was given to him

to produce his witnesses. Before issuance of impugned

order of dismissal approval of competent authority was

not obtained as required under the Standing Orders. The

said order of dismissal is devoid of reasons for the decision

and the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with

preconceived notion as if Petitioner accepted the charges

alleged against him which is factually incorrect. The

enquiry was not conducted in the language known to the

Petitioner and it was not explained to him in the language

known to him. His signature was merely obtained. The

documents referred to in the enquiry report are not

furnished to the Petitioner. The evidence of irrelevant

witnesses was relied upon. Submissions of the Petitioner

during the enquiry remained unrebutted. Subsequent to

the impugned order the Management conducted

interviews for the workmen who was dismissed from service

on account of absenteeism. In response Petitioner also

applied for the same and attended the interview. But, he

was not given reappointment though others were given

the same. He is the sole bread winner of his family

consisting of old aged and ailing mother, wife and two

children who are all denied the livelihood due to the

impugned order. Petitioner was unable to attend to his

duties regularly during the given period only on account

of his frequent and recurring sickness but not otherwise.

He is eager and interested to attend to his work, if

opportunity is given to him. Further, the punishment of

dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive and

disproportionate to the charges alleged. On account of

his financial exigencies he could not engage advocate and

approach the court previously. Hence, the delay occurred

in approaching the court. Hence, the petition.

3.

Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

Though, the amendment effected to Sec.2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable to the

present case as central government is the appropriate

government, the Petitioner straight away approached the

Industrial Tribunal by filing this petition which is not

maintainable. Contention of the Petitioner that his services

were satisfactory is not correct. He remained absent for

222 days and put in only 64 musters during the year 1999.

As such, charge sheet dated 1.2.2000 was issued under

company’s Standing Orders No.25.25, which reads as,

“Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause”

The explanation given by the Petitioner was found

to be not satisfactory. As such, enquiry was ordered.

Contention of the Petitioner that he was not given proper

opportunity during the enquiry is not correct. He was

given full and fair opportunity to defend himself and the

enquiry was conducted in compliance of the principles of

natural justice. Petitioner has not taken any prior

permission or leave from competent authorities reporting

any sickness. Petitioner has not availed the medical

facilities provided by the respondent company. It is a fact

that Petitioner assured during the course of enquiry that

he will attend for duty without absence in future. But he

failed to attend duty regularly. He put in only 20 actual

attendance from 1.1.2001 to 17.5.2001 which clearly shows

that he has no interest to do the job in the respondent

company. The contention of the Petitioner that the enquiry

was conducted with preconceived notions and with pre

determined manner and that his contentions were never

considered either during enquiry or at the time of passing

order of dismissal against him, are all incorrect. Procedure

of the enquiry was explained to the Petitioner. The contents

of charge sheet were explained to him in Telugu. He was

asked to produce his evidence in support of his statement.

But he failed to produce the same. Basing on the evidence

produced by the presenting officer, which established that

Petitioner has remained absent for 222 days during the

year 1999 and also basing on the statement of the Petitioner

that he was absent due to ill-health and personal problems

but he did not report to company’s hospital for treatment

3940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and also failed to produce any proof regarding his sickness.

The enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges leveled

against him. The contention of the Petitioner that before

issuing the order of dismissal approval of competent

authority was not obtained as per Standing Orders is not

correct. Respondent No.1 is the competent authority to

take disciplinary action against the workman. He applied

his mind independently for issuing the impugned order of

dismissal. Contentions of the Petitioner that the enquiry

officer relied upon irrelevant witnesses and the documents

which were not furnished to the Petitioner and gave self-

contradictory findings are all incorrect. Since, Petitioner’s

case has not fallen under item No.4 of the representation

dated 5.7.2004 given by the Singareni Coal Mines Labour

Union (INTUC) and as there is no merit of the case of the

Petitioner he was not considered for reinstatement. Mere

calling for interview does not confer any right for

appointment. Petitioner’s contention that punishment of

dismissal is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to

the charges levelled against is denied. Petitioner is put to

strict proof that after the date of dismissal from service he

was not gainfully employed elsewhere. Even after issuance

of charge sheet Petitioner has not improved his

performance. Even in the year 1998 he put in only 75

musters, and in the year 2000 only 49 musters whereas

from January, 2001 and upto 17.5.2001, he put in only 20

musters. Considering all these aspects Management was

constrained to dismiss him from service. Such

unauthorised absence creates sudden void which at times

is very difficult to fill up and there will be disturbance in

the planned schedules. Thus, respondent company is

compelled to take severe action against the unauthorised

absentees like the Petitioner. Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

4.

By virtue of memo filed on 20.2.2009, Petitioner

conceded to the validity of domestic enquiry conducted

in this case and in the light of the said memo this court

held that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case as

valid.

5.

Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both parties filed

their respective written arguments also and the same are

considered.

6.

The Points arise for determination are:

I.

Whether the impugned order dated 24.5.2001 issued

by the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary and is

liable to be set aside?

II.

To what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?

7.

Point No.I:

Though, several contentions are raised by the

Petitioner complaining against the manner and mode of

conducting of the domestic enquiry in this case, he has

chosen to concede to the validity of the same. Thus,

there is no need to go into the merits and demerits of all

these contentions. What all to be considered now is,

whether the impugned order of dismissal from service

passed by the first respondent is so passed considering

the merits and demerits of the findings of the enquiry officer

in the light of the evidence adduced on record and also in

consideration of the pleas put forth by the Petitioner in

his defence and whether the punishment awarded is

proportionate to the proven charges.

8.

It is an admitted fact that Petitioner has put in only

64 musters and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty

for 222 days during the year 1999. Standing Orders 25.25

of the respondent company makes, habitual late attendance

or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause, as

a form of misconduct which is liable for punishment.

9.

For the unauthorised absence on the part of the

Petitioner during the year 1999, he claims that his sickness

and family problems are the reasons and as sufficient

cause. It is his consistent plea that due to such causes

only he was unable to be regular to his duties during the

year 1999. As can be seen from the enquiry proceedings

produced before this court, Petitioner made a categorical

statement before the enquiry officer that due to the

genuine illness he could not attend to his duties regularly.

According to him, he was frequently falling ill during that

period and due to such extreme unavoidable circumstances

he was absent from duties. As rightly pointed out for the

Petitioner, his statement remained unrebutted. The

Presenting Officer has not chosen to cross examine the

Petitioner during the departmental enquiry to contradict

his statement in any manner. In the given circumstances,

it is to be taken that the Management accepted the truth

of the pleas put forth by the Petitioner that due to

frequently recurring sickness Petitioner was unable to

attend to his duties regularly during the year 1999. In the

given circumstances one has to take that there is

reasonable and sufficient cause for the absence of the

Petitioner from his duties during that period. But beyond

the scope of the enquiry it is being contended that since,

the Petitioner failed to report before any medical facilities

provided by the respondent company, his contentions

can not be accepted. This is a far fetched contention and

it can not be accepted.

10.

In view of the foregone discussion of the material

on record, it can safely be held that though, it is an admitted

fact that Petitioner remained absent from duty for

considerable period during the year 1999, it will not come

under the purview of Standing Orders 25.25 of the

respondent company since, there is sufficient cause for

the said absenteeism.

11.

Further more, it is not the contention of the

respondent company that there was any other occasion

of chargesheeting the Petitioner for unauthorised

absenteeism earlier and punishing him for such conduct.

It is the first and only charge sheet issued against the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3941

Petitioner by the respondent company complaining of

unauthorised absenteeism. For this first incident of alleged

misconduct, the gravest punishment provided for in the

Standing Orders i.e., dismissal from service, has been

awarded by the first respondent vide the impugned order.

It is not a tenable and reasonable action on the part of the

first respondent. Several modes of punishment provided

for in the Standing Orders to give leverage to the erring

workers to correct themselves. Only if they failed to correct

themselves inspite of lesser punishments being awarded

to them, the capital punishment i.e., dismissal from service

becomes warranted. If it is the intention of the author of

the Standing Orders which are approved and brought into

effect by the respondent company that the only

punishment to be awarded for the misconduct is dismissal

from service, it would be the only punishment provided in

the Standing Orders. Because, there are several other

modes of punishment are provided, unless there are

compelling reasons to award the gravest punishment

provided for, for the very first event of misconduct, it

shall not be awarded. Thus, it can safely be held that the

award of the punishment of dismissal from the service in

this case is not proper and reasonable.

12.

It is the contention of the respondent that past and

previous conduct of the Petitioner was considered while

awarding the impugned punishment. This contention is

also not a reasonable and acceptable contention for the

reason that there is no explanation called for and received

for the past and previous conduct of absenteeism from

duties on the part of the Petitioner and enquired into and

therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice.

13.

One another contention raised for the respondents

is that there are clear latches on the part of the Petitioner

since, there is substantial delay on the part of the Petitioner

in approaching this court. No doubt there is delay on the

part of the Petitioner in approaching this court, since the

impugned order was passed on 24.5.2001 whereas he filed

this petition on 31.10.2006.

14.

Regarding the aspect of delay in approaching the

court, it is the contention of the Petitioner that due to

such latches, Petitioner’s right to approach the court will

not suffer in any manner and that as per the well established

principles of law as laid down in the cases of Ajaib Singh

Vs.SirHind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing service

Society Limited and Another. (1999) 6 SCC 82 and Shahaji

Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD (2005) 12 SCC 141, the court

can mould the relief while granting the back wages etc.,

only and that for this reason the relief of reinstatement

into service can not be denied if it is found that the order

of dismissal from service is illegal and unjust. This is the

effect of the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Apex

Court in the above cited legal precedents.

15.

In view of the fore gone discussion on the material

on record, it can safely be held that the impugned order

No. P.RG.1/32A/3193 dated 24.5.2001 rendered by the first

respondent is to be declared as illegal and arbitrary and

that it is liable to be set aside. This point is answered

accordingly.

16.

Point No.II:

In view of the discussion of the facts and law and

also the findings given while deciding Point No.I above,

Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with

effect from 24.5.2001. Further, he is entitled for all

attendant benefits as well. But considering the fact that

there is delay of about 5 and ½ years in approaching the

court on the part of the Petitioner, the relief of back wages

is to be appropriately moulded. Considering the same and

considering the financial constraints of the Petitioner and

also the fact that though he was called for the interview

for considering him for reinstatement into service,

Respondent denied the same to him, granting of 75% of

back wages to the Petitioner from the date of impugned

order till the date of publication of this award and thereafter

full wages, till the date of his reinstatement into service is,

reasonable back wages to be awarded to the Petitioner.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result petition is allowed. The impugned order

No. P.RG.1/32A/3193 dated 24.5.2001 of the first respondent

is declared as illegal and unjust and is hereby set aside.

Petitioner shall be reinstated into service with effect from

24.5.2001 forthwith. He is entitled for all attendant benefits

consequent to his reinstatement into service. As far as

back wages are concerned, respondent shall pay 75% of

the wages which he is entitled but for the impugned order

of dismissal from service, from the date of said order i.e.,

24.5.2001 till the date of publication of this award and

thereafter full wages till the date of Petitioner’s

reinstatement into service.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 21st

day of April, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

3942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk-1501 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbZiQ bU'kqjsal

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (72@1991) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@27@91&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O.1501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 72/1991) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-17012/27/91-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 24th March, 2014

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 72/1991

I Party

Sh. D S Rangaraddiyavar,

At : Gurlakatte, Kankikoppa P O.,

Nargund Taluk, Dharwad Dist–580 001

II Party

The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

P B No. 16, Dharwad–580 001.

Appearances

I Party

: Shri K V Sathyanarayana, Advocate

II Party

: Shri S M Gajendran, Advocate

AWARD

1.

The Central Government vide order No. L-17012/27/

91-IR(B-II) dated 28.10.1991 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Life Insurance

Corporation of India is justified in removing Sh. D S

Rangareddiyavar from service with effect from

21.10.1986? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

72/1991 when notices were issued to both the sides the I

Party filed his claim statement on 18.11.1991 asserting that

the Domestic Enquiry conducted against him was not fair

and proper and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was

baseless, perverse and even otherwise the punishment of

removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority is disproportionate. The II Party filed its counter

statement on 04.03.1992 interalia, wherein it besides

contending that the Domestic Enquiry conducted was fair

and proper and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is

based on the evidence placed before him and the

punishment imposed is just and appropriate also contended

the I Party being an Officer and was not a workman the

reference is not maintainable.

3.

The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4.

The I Party who was appointed as Probationary

Development Officer by the II Party on 16.10.1974 and

confirmed his services on 13.12.1976 served with charge

sheet dated 07.05.1994 on the allegations that he procured

a proposal for insurance of Rs. 1,00,000.00 of Sh. Vasudev

Rangappa Jangal in the month of March 1982 with the

knowledge that he was uninsurable on account of the fact

that he was suffering from neurological problems from

child hood, diagnosed as congenital cerebral palsy which

was incurable and who had no property in his name and

arranged for a medical examination of the said person with

two medical practitioners who had only a limit of Rs.

25000.00 and that an untenable explanation was given with

reference to a pointed quarry as to why doctors of the

higher limit were not availed of for purposes of examination

of the said person and thereby failed to comply with

Regulations 21 and 24 r/w 39 of LIC of India (Staff)

Regulations, 1960 for which any one or more of the

penalties prescribed in Regulation 39 could be imposed

and conducted the Domestic Enquiry appointing V. B. Rao

as Enquiry Officer and Sh. A. Ahmed as Presenting Officer.

The Enquiry Officer observing the formalities of

preliminary hearing and receiving the evidence of Dr.Gaddi

Elappa Thippanna, Sh. S. P. Kodlimath, Dr. Vittal Devappa

Mhapsekar, Sh. N. R. Patil, Sh. N. B. Pujar, Sh. S. B.

Kademane, Sh. I. S. Nirody, Sh. R. A. Deshpande, Sh. V. G.

Mulgund, Sh. N. K. Gurumurthy, Sh. K. V. Upadhya, Miss.

Leela Malagavi, Sh. Ramakrishna Reddy for the

management and Sh. Krishnappa T. Devanur, Sh. Vedadas

H. Achar, Sh. Halli, Sh. Venkanna Bentur and Sh. Meera

Sahib for the defence and exhibiting Ex P-1 to Ex P-36 for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3943

the management and after receiving the written briefs

submitted his finding dated 23.01.1986 the charge being

proved. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing second

show cause notice and giving an opportunity of hearing

by his order dated 21.10.1986 imposed the punishment of

removal from service. Aggrieved by the same the I Party

approached the ALC(C), Mangalore for conciliation and

on its failure the Central Government made this reference

for adjudication.

5.

After completion of the pleadings my learned

predecessors while framing a Preliminary Issue as to

‘Whether the II party proves that it has held the Domestic

Enquiry against I Party workman in accordance with law

and natural justice?’, after receiving the evidence of both

the sides by order dated 19.05.1999 held the same in the

Affirmative and after hearing the arguments on merits

passed the award on 24.08.1999 Rejecting the Reference.

When the said Order on Preliminary Issue as well as the

Award was challenged by the I Party before the Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka in W P No. 47322/2001 (L-TER)

the same was allowed setting aside the order on Domestic

Enquiry as well as the Award and matter was remitted back

for fresh consideration. Then re-registering the reference

and securing the presence of both the sides when the

matter was posted for evidence of II Party to justify the

charges levelled against the I Party, since the counsel for

II party filed an application on 18.07.2006 for rejection of

the reference on the ground that the I Party being a

Development Officer and not a workman the reference is

liable to be rejected, after hearing the arguments on the

application since the same was dismissed by Order dated

09.02.2007 the II Party approached the Hon’ble High Court

of Karnataka in W P No. 5944/2007. The Hon’ble High

Court by order dated 11.04.2007 dismissed the said Writ

Petition observing that the impugned order being an

interim order it is open to the II Party to challenge the

same if the main award goes against it. This order of the

Hon’ble Single Judge when taken in appeal before the

Division bench of the Hon’ble High Court in W A No.

1181/2007 the division bench of the Hon’ble High Court

by order dated 07.08.2007 rejected the said appeal

confirming the Order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

Since thereafter the Counsel for I Party raised oral objection

that II Party cannot lead evidence on merits as it has not

taken plea in the counter statement seeking permission of

court that in the event of Domestic Enquiry held to be

unfair to lead evidence on merits accepting the said

objection my learned predecessor when posted the matter

for hearing of arguments on merits and subsequently

rejected the application filed by the II Party counsel dated

03.09.2007 seeking permission to lead fresh evidence on

merits by order dated 19.11.2007 and posted to hear

arguments on merits, II Party approached the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka in W P No. 19950/2007 to quash the

said order and the Hon’ble High Court when dismissed

the same by order dated 07.01.2008 after hearing the

arguments of both the sides by Award dated 07.02.2008

directed the II Party to reinstate the I Party into service in

case he has not attained the age of superannuation and

shall be paid 50% of the backwages from the date of removal

from service till the date of reinstatement or till the date of

attaining the age of superannuation whichever is earlier

with continuity of service and all other consequential

benefits. When this Award was challenged by the II Party

before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W P No.

5831/2008 the Hon’ble High Court by order dated

18.03.2009 quashed the Award and remanded back for fresh

disposal in accordance with law after affording

opportunities to both the parties keeping open all the

contentions of the parties to be urged before this tribunal.

The said Order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was when

challenged by the I Party before the Division Bench of

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W A No. 3284/2009 by

order dated 10.12.2012 dismissed the appeal while

accepting the view of the single judge the II Party has to

be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of

the charge of misconduct. On receipt of the copy of order

of the division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of

Karnataka from the I Party while re-registering the reference

in the same number and securing the presence of the

counsel for the II Party he was directed to adduce the

evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the

I Party. Then the learned advocate appearing for the

II Party while filing the affidavit of Sh. Haridasa, Manager

(P&IR) examining him on oath as MW 1 (M) got exhibited

Ex M-1(m) to Ex M-35(m) the detailed description of which

are narrated in the annexure and while filing the affidavit

of Administrative Officer of LIC, Belgaum examined her on

oath as MW 2 (M). Then he made a futile attempt to secure

the presence of Enquiry Officer who conducted the

Domestic Enquiry and two CBI Police Officials namely

Sh. H. Ramanath, Sh. J. Ramakrishna Reddy and

Sh. Ahamad and as inspite of sufficient opportunity and

aid of the court to secure their presence since he could

not bring them and examine them the side of the II Party

was taken as closed and I Party was called upon to adduce

his evidence. Then the I party by filing his affidavit

examining him on oath as WW 1 (M) without getting any

documents exhibited closed his side. Then when the matter

was posted for arguments both sides have filed their

written arguments.

6.

In view of the facts narrated by me above since the

charge against the I Party was that he procured a proposal

for insurance of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for Sh. Vasudev Rangappa

Jangal in the month of March 1982 with a knowledge that

he was uninsurable on account of the fact that he was

suffering from neurological problems from child hood,

diagnosed as congenital cerebral palsy which was

incurable and who had no property in his name and

arranged for a medical examination of the said person from

3944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

two medical practitioners who had only limit of Rs. 25,000.00

and that an untenable explanation was given with reference

to a pointed quarry as to why doctors of the higher limit

was not availed off for purposes of examination for the

said purpose and thereby failed to comply with regulations

of 21 and 24 r/w 39 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960

for which any one or more of the penalties prescribed in

Regulations 39 could be imposed, in view of the

contentions taken by the II Party in the counter statement

and the Hon’ble High Court kept open the consideration

whether I Party was a workman or not, the points that

arises for my consideration are :

Point No. 1: Whether II Party proves that I Party

was not a workman and thereby the provisions of

ID Act are not attracted?

Point No. 2 : Whether II Party proves the I Party

knowing well that Sh. Vasudev Rangappa Jangal

was suffering from Neurological problems from

childhood diagnosed as congenital cerebral palsy

which was incurable, procured a proposal for his

insurance of Rs. 1,00,000.00 in the month of Mach

1982 suppressing the said fact?

Point No. 3 : If yes, whether the punishment imposed

upon him removing from service is just and

reasonable?

Point No. 4 : What order/Award?

7.

On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides

in the light of the arguments put forward by their learned

advocates my finding on Point No. 1, 2 are in the Negative

and No. 3 as does not survive for consideration and No. 4

as per final order for the following :

REASONS

8.

There is no dispute about the II Party appointing

the I Party as a Development Officer on Probation from

27.09.1974 and confirming him in the Service on 13.12.1976.

Since the II Party in Para 1 (b) of the counter statement

contended that I Party/Claimant being not a workman this

tribunal is not competent to decide this dispute. As far as

this contention of the II Party by filing an IA on 18.07.2006

sought for rejection of the reference and on dismissal of

the said application by order dated 09.02.2007 it had

approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W P

No. 5944/2007and the Hon’ble High Court by Order dated

11.04.2007 dismissed the said Writ Petition observing that

the impugned order being an interim order it is open to the

II Party to challenge the same if the main award goes against

it and the said order came to be affirmed by the Division

Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in W A No. 1181/2007 by

order dated 07.08.2007, the contention of the II Party that

I Party being a Development Officer he is not a workman

as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act as such the

reference is not maintainable is open for consideration. In

this connection in the written arguments filed by the

II party counsel no whisper has been made but on the

other hand the learned advocate appearing for the I Party

in his written arguments while referring to the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Verma Vs.

Mahesh Chandra and another reported in AIR 1984 SC

1462 wherein it is held the Development Officer in LIC is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act

and also the unreported decision of the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka in W A No. 367/2006 dated 07.06.2006

wherein also it is held the Development Officer of LIC is a

workman under Industrial Dispute Act, he has urged to

reject this contention urged on behalf of the II Party. Since

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Verma Vs.

Mahesh Chandra and another reported in AIR 1984 SC

1462 having clearly held that the Development Officer in

Life Insurance Corporation cannot be by any stretch of

imagination be said to be engaged in any administrative

or managerial work, he is a workman as defined under

Section 2(s) of the ID Act and no evidence contrary being

brought on record in this matter, I find no merit in the

contention of the II Party the I Party being not a workman

the reference of his dispute before the tribunal as not

maintainable. Accordingly, I arrived at conclusion of

Answering the Point No. 1 in the Negative.

9.

Of course, there is no dispute the I Party having

procured a proposal of Insurance of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for

Sh. Vasudev Rangappa Jangal in the month of March 1982

arranging for his medical examination from two medical

practitioners who had limit of Rs. 25,000.00 each and the

said person died within four months from the date of giving

his proposal but the I Party has denied knowledge about

he was suffering from congenital cerebral palsy. Therefore,

it was for the II Party to prove that I Party had knowledge

about Sh. Vasudev Rangappa Jangal suffering from

congenital cerebral palsy and intentionally suppressing

the same while making proposal for his insurance. Since it

is admitted by MW 1(M) that before the proposals are

accepted they used to be scrutinized in the New Business

Department (NBD) and then will be forwarded to the

Divisional Office, the Development Officer was not the

final authority for acceptance of the proposal and his

proposals were being subjected to scrutiny by the NBD.

Therefore, if at all I Party had made any deficiency in

proposing the insurance for Vasudev Rangappa Jangal it

ought to have been sent back to him for rectification or to

do the needful. Moreover, no medical evidence being

brought on record by examining any doctors to substantiate

that the said Vasudev Rangappa Jangal was suffering from

Neurological problems from childhood diagnosed as

Congenital Cerebral Palsy, since it is an admitted fact that

MW 1 (M) had no personal knowledge about the facts of

this case and he has given evidence on the basis of the

records and no records being brought on record the

Sh. Vasudev Rangappa Jangal was suffering from

congenital cerebral palsy from his childhood, it is not

possible to impute such knowledge to I Party. It appears

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3945

in this connection CBI was moved but no evidence is

brought on record as to the outcome of its investigation,

therefore, it can be presumed that CBI may not have charge

sheeted the I Party in this connection. The learned

advocate appearing for the II Party made much to secure

the presence of the Enquiry Officer of the Domestic

Enquiry and two of the CBI Inspectors but I failed to

understand what he could have achieved by examining

them. Only because Sh. Vasudev Rangappa Jangal whose

insurance policy for Rs. 1,00,000.00 was proposed by the

I Party died within four months from the date of the said

proposal, it is not possible to impute knowledge to the I

Party that he was aware of his suffering from congenital

cerebral palsy from his childhood and making proposal

for his insurance suppressing the same. Under the

circumstances, I arrive at conclusion the II Party having

miserably failed to prove that I Party with prior knowledge

Sh. Vasudev Rangappa Jangal was suffering from

congenital cerebral palsy from his childhood made proposal

of his policy and thereby cheated it. Accordingly, while

arriving to the conclusion of answering the Point No. 2 in

the Negative, I am of the opinion that Point No. 3 does not

survive for consideration.

10.

Since the II Party failed to substantiate the charge

levelled against the I Party, its action from removing him

from service cannot be sustained. Since the II Party failed

to rebut the evidence of the I Party that he is not gainfully

employed after his removal from Service and long lapse of

time from the date of impugned action till its final

conclusion, I feel compensating him by 50% of wages

payable to him from the date of impugned removal of

service till he attained the age of superannuation would

meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I pass the following

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the management of

LIC of India is not justified in removing Sh. D S

Rangaraddiyavar from service with effect from 21.10.1986

and that he is entitle for continuity of Service with all

other consequential benefits that he would have received

till the date of attaining superannuation with 50 % of

backwages.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 24th March 2014).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE–I

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management in

Domestic Enquiry :

Ex M-1

: Statement of Dr. Gaddi Ellappa Thippanna

dated 21.11.1983 made before and recorded

by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-2

: Claimant’s Statement from Shri Narayan R.

Jangal, dated 8th August, 1982.

Ex M-3

: Statement of Sri S. P. Kolimath, Shesitedar,

Taluka Office, Navalgund, Dated 22.11.1983

made before and recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy,

PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-4

: Certificate of death of late Rangappa Jangal

(father of Vasudev R Jangal), dated 22nd Nov.

1983.

Ex M-5

: Statement of Dr. V. D. Mhapsekar, Medical

Practitioner, Hubli, dated 23rd August, 1983,

made before and recorded by Sri R. K. Reddy,

PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-6

: Statement of Sri N. P. Sunagar, Head Master,

Govt. Model Higher Primary Kannada Boys

School, Annigeri, dated 26th November, 1983,

made before and recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy,

PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-7

: Abstract of School Admission Register of

MCS, Annigere, Book No. 23, relating to

registration No. 908 of Late Vasudev R Jangal,

certified by Head Master, Govt. Model Higher

Primary Kannada Boys School, Annigere, on

26th Nov. 1983.

Ex M-8

: Statement of Sri Channabasappa Rudrappa

Novalgund, Clerk, Town Municipal

Corporation, Annigeri, dated 27th Sept. 1983,

made before and recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy,

PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-9

: Letter dated 19.07.1982 from Sri N. R. Jangal,

intimating death of Late V. R. Jangal on

13.07.1982 and asking for claim forms.

Ex M-10

: Statement of Dr. N. R. Patil, Medical

Practitioner, Annigeri, dated 21.08.1983 made

before and recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/

CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-11

: Statement of Sri N. B. Pujar, Clerk, Town

Municipal Corporation, Annigeri, dated

28.09.1983 made before and recorded by Sri J.

R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-12

: Extract from the Register of Births, containing

entries against Sl. No. 31 relating to late

Vasudev R Jangal, certified on behalf of the

Town Municipal Council, Annigeri, by Sri C.

R. Navalgund, Clerk, TMC.

Ex M-13

: Statement of Sri S B Kademane, Resident of

Annigeri, dated 21st Nov. 1983, made before

and recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/

SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-14

: Statement of Sri I S Nirody, Administrative

Officer, LIC of India, dated 5th July, 1983 made

before and recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/

CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

3946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex M-15

: Copy of letter dated 27th Sept. 1974/16th Oct.

1974 addressed to CSE by the Divisional

Manager, LIC of India, Dharwad, offering him

appointment as a Probationary Development

Officer and detailing the terms and conditions

of appointment with Headquarters at

Navalgund and area of Operation Navalgund

Taluk Exclusively.

Ex M-16

: Copy of letter dated 17th Oct. 1974 from the

CSE to the Divisional Manager, LICI, Dharwad

accepting the terms of appointment and

confirming that he was reported for duty on

16.10.1974, certified true by Sri I. S. Nirody,

Administrative Officer, DM’s Sectl. Dept., LIC

of India, Dharwad.

Ex M-17

: Copy of letter dated 13th Feb. 1976 addressed

to the CSE by the Divisional Manager, LIC of

India, Dharwad, advising him of his

confirmation in the services with effect from

1st Jan. 1976.

Ex M-18

: Service Particulars of CSE under the signature

of the Divisional manager, LIC of India,

Dharwad, not dated.

Ex M-19

: Statement of Sri R. A. Deshpande, Assistant,

N B Department, LIC of India, Dharwad, dated

19th August, 1983 made before and recorded

by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-20

: Proposal for life insurance in Form No. 300,

dated 18th march, 82 with the thumb

impression of Late Vasudev R. Jangal,

countersigned by two Medical Examiners, Dr.

A. S. Yeraguppi and Dr. N. Prahaladmurthy.

Proposal attested as witness by Sri G. R. Meti

and interpretation clause completed by Sri N.

Y. Bannappanavar.

Ex M-21

: Agent’s Confidential Report from Sri G. R.

Meti dated 20th march, 1982

Ex M-22

: Development Officer’s Confidential Report

dated 20th March, 1982 from the CSE.

Ex M-23

: Extract of age dated 31st March, 1982 signed

for the Branch Manager, Dharwad.

Ex M-24

: Challan for payment of Rs. 3,007/- without

date, with details of premium calculation

overleaf.

Ex M-25

: Deposit Memorandum No. 58527, dated 31st

March, 1982 for Rs. 3,007 from the Branch

Office, Dharwad.

Ex M-26

: Deposit Memorandum No. 58592 dated

31.03.1982 for Rs. 63/-.

Ex M-27

: Letter addressed to the Branch Manager,

Dharwad, without date from the CSE,

requesting acceptance of examination by two

Doctors with a limit of Rs. 25,000 each as

Doctor with a limit of Rs. 50,000 was out of

headquarters.

Ex M-28

: Statement of Sri. V. G. Mulgund, Asst. Branch

manager (D), Dharwad Branch Office, dated

20th August, 1983 made before and recorded

by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

Ex M-29

: Letter dated 20th August 1983 addressed to

Investigation Officer, DBI, Bangalore by Sri

V. G. Mulgund regarding agency particulars

of Sri G. R. Meti.

Ex M-30

: Statement of Sri N. K. Gurumurthy,

Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Dharwad

dated ‘NIL’ confirmed by the witness on 14th

August, 1985 during the proceedings as a

statement made before and recorded by Sri J.

R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore

Ex M-31

: Proposal Review Slip of Policy No. 64227887

for Rs. 1,00,000/- with a decision dated

31.03.1982.

Ex M-32

: Copy of Policy No. 64227887, dated 14th June,

1982.

Ex M-33

: Original Policy No. 64227887, dated 14th June,

1982.

Ex M-34

: Certificate dated 20th August, 1983 signed

for the Divisional Manager, LIC of India,

Dharwad, detailing the names of four Doctors

appointed by LIC and working at Annigeri

and ‘aroud areas’.

Ex M-35

: Statement of Sri K. V. Upadhya, Higher Grade

Assistants, LIC of India, Dharwad, Branch

Office, dated 20th Aug. 1983 made before and

recorded by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE,

Bangalore.

Ex M-36

: Statement of Miss. Lella Malagavi, Assistant,

LIC of India, Dharwad Divisional Office, dated

19th August, 1983, made before and recorded

by Sri J. R. K. Reddy, PI/CBI/SPE, Bangalore.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1502-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs'ku cSad

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2006)

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@107@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3947

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. 01/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Corporation

Bank, and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-12012/107/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 20th January, 2014

PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 01/2006

I Party

Sh. A T Ramareddy,

S/o Sh. Thimmareddy,

R/o Farm House,

Almangala Hoble, Kallahatty Village,

Chitradurga Dt. Since deceased rep. by LR’s

II Party

The Chairman,

Corporation Bank,

Head Office,

Mangaladevi Temple Road,

MANGALORE.

1.

Smt. Shobha Rama Reddy,

W/o Late A T Rama Reddy

2.

Sh. Varun Rama Reddy,

S/o late A T Rama Reddy,

Residing at Farm House,

Almangala Hoble, Kallahatty Village,

Taluk : Hiriyur, Chitradurga Dist.

Appearances :

I Party

: Shri M Rama Rao,

Authorised Representative

II Party

: Shri Pradeep S Sawkar, Advocate

AWARD

1.

The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/

107/2005-IR(B-II) dated 19.12.2005 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Corporation Bank is justified in discharging Sh. A.

T. Rama Reddy from the services of the Bank? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

01/2006 when notices were issued to both sides I Party

entered his appearance through Sh. M. Rama Rao,

Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees Association

and filed his claim statement on 01.02.2006, whereas, the II

Party appeared through Sh. Pradeep S Sawkar, Advocate

and filed his counter statement on 15.09.2006. After

completion of the pleadings having regard to certain

allegations made by the I Party in his claim statement

touching the Domestic Enquiry while framing a Preliminary

Issue as to “Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against

the I Party by the II Party is fair and proper?” after receiving

the oral and documentary evidence produced by both

sides, after hearing their Authorised Representative and

Advocate by Order dated 18.02.2011 the said issue came

to be answered in the affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry

held against the I Party by the II Party is Fair and Proper,

posted the matter for hearing arguments on merits. After

the cross-examination of the I Party workman since he

died his wife came on record as his Legal Representative.

The Authorised Representative of the Legal

Representative of the I Party and Sh. SRS for PSS filed

their Written Arguments and relied upon the following

citations:

1. AIR 2004 SC 2135 – UCO Bank and Others Vs.

Sanwarmal

2. 2001 (1) SCC 214 – Punjab and Sindh Bank and

Others Vs. Sakattar Singh

3. (2005) 5 SCC 337 – Vivekanand Sethi Vs. Chairman,

J&K Bank Ltd., and Others

4. (2000) 5 SCC 65 – Syndicate Bank Vs. General

Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Assn. and another

5. (2009) 9 SC 462 – Regional Manager, Bank of

Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog

6. 2004 (7) SCC 574 – Delhi Transport Corporation

Vs. Sardar Singh

7. 2008 I LLJ 846 SC – L&T Komatsu Ltd., Vs. N.

Udayakumar

3.

The brief facts leading to this Reference and Award

may be stated as under:

4.

The deceased I Party workman who joined the II

Party Bank as Sub-staff on 27.11.1977 and came to be

promoted as Clerk in 1984 while serving at Mandipet

Branch, Davangere of the II Party was served with charge

sheet dated 22.04.2004 as under :

“You have been working as Clerk at Mandipet,

Davangere Branch of the bank since 22.05.2000. It

is reported against you as follows :

3948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

That you are in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly

absent from duties in violation of the leave rules

applicable to you. That for your such lapses in the

past Zonal Office, Hubli in terms of letter bearing

No. ZO/PAD/LS/851/2001-02 dated 24.12.2001

imposed upon you the punishment of ‘Warning’.

That in spite of the above, you failed to mend your

conduct and are remaining unauthorisedly absent

from duties continuously since 20.10.2003 without

any prior intimation and prior sanction of leave, in

utter disregard of the leave rules applicable to you.

That further you have so far not submitted any leave

application for your absence between the period

leave application for your absence between the

period 27.04.2003 & 09.06.2003 and between the

period 06.08.2003 & 25.08.2003 and for your period

of absence from 20.10.2003 onwards.

3.

That in this regard Branch Manager, Mandipet,

Davangere branch on 30.10.2003 sent a telegram to

you, directing you to join duty immediately. That

however, you failed to comply with his directions

and instead sent a telegram dated 03.11.2003 with

message extend leave from 02.11.2003 to 15.11.2003.

That on 19.11.2003 you sent one more telegram with

message ‘extend leave up to 04.12.2003’. That

however you did not join duty even on 05.12.2003.

That therefore the Branch Manager, Mandipet,

Davangere branch sent a telegram dated 16.01.2004

to you followed by a confirmatory letter, directing

you to join duty immediately and informing you that

your absence has been treated as unauthorised and

also directing you to appear before Dr. T. G. Niranjan,

Nandi Hospital, P J Extension, Davangere for a

medical check up if you are remaining absent on

sick grounds. That however, you failed to comply

with his directions and instead sent another telegram

dated 28.01.2004 with the message extend leave till

‘07.02.2004’ without giving any reason for the same

and without submitting any leave application. That

on 11.02.2004 you sent yet another telegram with

the message ‘extend leave from 08.02.2004 to

25.02.2004’ without giving any reason for such

extension and without submitting any leave

application.

4.

That by your unauthorised absence as detailed

above, you are causing lot of inconvenience for the

smooth functioning of the branch.

5.

The aforesaid acts and omissions on your part in

remaining unauthorisedly absent from duties for

prolonged period in utter disregard to the leave rules

applicable to you and inconveniencing the smooth

functioning of the branch, if proved, would

tantamount to :

a.

wilful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful and reasonable order of the management

or of a superior;

b.

doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank and

c.

remaining unauthorisedly absent without

intimation continuously for a period exceeding

30 days

gross misconducts under clauses 5(e), 5(j) and

5(p) respectively of the Bipartite Settlement

applicable to you.

6.

A written Domestic Enquiry is hereby ordered into

the aforesaid allegations/charges levelled against

you.

7.

The details regarding the name of the Enquiry Officer

and the Presenting Officer will be intimated to you

in due course. The date and place of enquiry will be

intimated to you by the Enquiry Officer.

8.

The list of documents by which and the list of

witnesses by whom the management proposed to

substantiate the charges levelled against you and a

photocopy each of the documents proposed to be

relied upon, in the enquiry, are enclosed.

9.

You will be given a reasonable opportunity to :

a.

Verify the documents the Management wants

to rely upon to substantiate the charges

levelled against you;

b.

Cross-examine the witnesses of the

Management;

c.

Produce documents you propose to rely upon

in your defence and

d.

Examine your witness/es.

10.

You will be permitted to take the assistance of a

representative of the Registered Trade Union of the

Bank Employee of which you are a member on the

date first notified for the commencement of the

enquiry, to defend you at the enquiry.

11.

You may offer your explanation, if any, in response

to this letter of charge within 10 days of receipt of

this letter.

Yours faithfully,

CHIEF MANAGER

Disciplinary Authority”

5.

Persuant to the service of the said Charge Sheet the

deceased I Party workman who addressed a letter to the

Disciplinary Authority dated 15.05.2004 seeking 30 days

time to submit his reply and also furnished his address for

future communication since even after lapse of 30 days

did not submit any explanation to the charge sheet the

Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 15.06.2004

ordered to hold the Domestic Enquiry by appointing

Sh. S. V. S. Dattatreya as Enquiry Officer and Sh. P.

Vivekananda Shenoy as Presenting Officer and later

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3949

substituted Sh. K. Raja Mohan as Enquiry Officer on

28.07.2004 and the Enquiry Officers after issuing the notice

to the CSE since the same returned unserved with

endorsement ‘refused to receive’ and ‘was not available

for seven days in the given address for service’ placing

him ex parte they received the evidence of Sh. D Manjunath,

Branch Manager and Sh. T Pradeep Kumar Patro, Manager

(Personnel) as MW 1 and MW 2 tendered by the

management and exhibited letter addressed by Manager,

Mandipet Branch to the Chief Manager, Disciplinary Cell,

Mangalore dated 13.09.2004; Leave applications of the

CSE dated 22.04.2003, 26.04.2003, 23.07.2003, 27.08.2003,

15.09.2003 and 06.10.2003; Letter No. OR/048/2004 dated

26.02.2004 of Mandipet, Davangere Branch; letter No. OR/

02/2004 dated 30.01.2004 of Mandipet, Davangere Branch;

letter No. OR/008/2004 dated 16.01.2004 of Mandipet,

Davangere Branch; letter No. OR/033/2004 dated 14.02.2004

of Mandipet, Davangere Branch; leave application dated

15.09.2003; letter No. OR/231/2003 dated 24.09.2003 of

Mandipet, Davangere Branch; letter No. OR/277/2003

dated 18.11.2003 of Mandipet, Davangere Branch; letter

No. OR/291/2003 dated 25.11.2003 of Mandipet, Davangere

Branch; letter ZO/PAD/LS/851/2001-02 dated 24.11.2001;

Sanction of leave particulars of AT Rama Reddy; letter

ZO/E-6285/2003 dated 25.11.2003 ZO Hubli; letter No. OR/

021/2004 dated 30/01/2004 of Mandipet, Davangere

Branch; Letter No. ZO/PAD/DISC/832/2003-04 dated 18/

11/2003 ZO Hubli; Letter No. ZO/PAD/DISC/OR/901/2004

dated 3/02/2004 ZO Hubli; Letter No. ZO/PAD/DISC/OR/

892/2003-04 dated 24/01/2004 ZO Hubli as Ex M-1 to Ex M-

22 in their evidence and after receiving the written brief of

the Presenting Officer submitted the enquiry finding dated

28.10.2004 holding the charges as proved. Then the

Disciplinary Authority by his letter dated 10.11.2004

enclosing the copy of the Enquiry Report and his proposal

of imposing the punishment of discharge from service

forwarded to the CSE for his reply and as the same was

returned undelivered with postal endorsement “The

Addresse not available for the last seven days return to

sender” the Disciplinary Authority presuming that CSE is

deliberately avoiding to receive the communication taking

he has no explanation to offer by his order dated 30.11.2004

imposed the punishment of Discharge from Service.

Thereafter, when the I Party workman preferred an appeal

to the Appellate Authority after affording an opportunity

of hearing dismissed the same by its order dated 22.01.2005.

Then on CSE approaching the ALC(C), Hubli, for

conciliation on his submission of FOC Report dated

02.08.2005 the ministry made this reference for

adjudication.

6.

The I Party in his claim statement asserts that as per

clause 13.13 of the Bipartite Settlement he had to inform

his absence from duties on resuming duties with fitness

certificates if he had went on leave on medical grounds

and he had followed these guidelines and was intimating

his absence of leave to the II Party through telegrams

dated 10.04.2003, 06.06.2003, 07.07.2003, 07.07.2003,

06.08.2003, 07.10.2003, 03.11.2003, 19.11.2003, 02.12.2003,

31.12.2003, 12.01.2004, 28.01.2004, 11.02.2004, 01.03.2004,

02.05.2004, 12.05.2004, 21.06.2004, 03.07.2004, 21.07.2004,

13.09.2004, 21.10.2004 and 13.11.2004 and had also sent

leave applications dated 22.04.2003, 20.06.2003, 23.07.2004,

23.07.2003, 27.08.2003, 15.09.2003 and 06.10.2003 and that

II Party had neither returned the telegrams, leave

applications submitted by him nor passed any order

refusing the leave applied by him under communication to

him, therefore, he presume that the II Party had sanctioned

the leave applied by him and abruptly issued a charge

sheet and the Enquiry Officer without serving notice on

him placing ex-parte submitted his finding and the same

has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority without

application of mind and similarly the Appellate Authority

also dismissed his appeal without application of mind as

such he is entitle for reinstatement with full backwages,

continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

Inter alia, the II Party in its counter statement contending

that the I Party workman was always in the habit of

remaining absent without permission in violation of the

Leave Rules and in the past Zonal Office, Hubli for such

lapses on his part in terms of letter dated 24.12.2001 had

imposed upon him the minor punishment of warning but

inspite of it he did not mend his behaviour and continued

to remain unauthorisedly absent from duties continuously

since 20.10.2003 without prior intimation and prior sanction

of leave disregarding the leave rules. It is further

contended the I Party who remained absent

unauthorisedly without submitting leave application from

27.04.2003 to 09.06.2003 for 43 days, from 06.08.2003 to

25.08.2003 for 20 days was sent with a telegram by the

Mandipet Branch Manager on 30.10.2003 directing him to

join the duty immediately but he did not report to duty

and instead sent a telegram dated 03.11.2003 with a

message “extend leave from 02.11.2003 to 15.11.2003” and

thereafter without joining on 16.11.2003 he sent another

telegram on 19.11.2003 as “extend leave upto 04.12.2003”

and even on 05.12.2003 since he did not report Branch

Manager, Mandipet sent him another telegram dated

16.11.2004 followed by a confirmatory letter directing him

to join duty immediately and further informing that his

absence was being treated as unauthorised and that he

should appear before Dr. T G Niranjan, Nandi Hospital, P J

Extension, Davangere for medical checkup if he was absent

on sick grounds and inspite of it he did not either report to

duty or appear before the said Doctor for medical

examination and chose to sent another telegram dated

28.01.2004 as “extend leave till 07.02.2004” without giving

any reason for the request of extension. Having regard to

this conduct on the part of the I Party in remaining

unauthorisedly absent from duty in disregard to the leave

rules and causing inconvenience for the smooth

functioning of the branch amounting to gross misconduct

3950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under clause 5(e), 5)(j) and 5(p) of the Bipartite Settlement

he was issued with charge sheet dated 22.04.2004 and as

he did not offer any explanation to the said charge sheet

the order to hold the Domestic Enquiry was passed

appointing Sh. S V S Dattatreya as Enquiry Officer and Sh.

Vivekananda Shenoy as Presenting Officer and later due

to administrative reasons Sh. SVS Dattatreya was

substituted by Sh. K Rajmohan as Enquiry Officer and as

the notices sent by the Enquiry Officer to the CSE either

returned as “Refused” or he was not available for the last

seven days left with no option they placed him ex parte

and after receiving the evidence tendered by the

Presenting Officer submitted a detailed enquiry finding

dated 28.10.2004 holding the charges as proved and then

the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the copy of the

Enquiry Report and his proposal for imposing the

punishment of Discharge called upon the CSE to give his

explanation/reply and as the same returned with shara that

he was not available for seven days to serve presuming

that he was avoiding the communication and has no

explanation to give the punishment of discharge being

imposed and on appeal by the CSE the Appellate Authority

after affording opportunity of hearing having dismissed

the same by his detailed order dated 22.01.2005 there is no

reason to hold the enquiry finding as perverse or the

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and

affirmed by the Appellate Authority as disproportionate

prayed for Rejection of the Reference.

7.

On appreciation of the Charge of unauthorised

absence levelled against the I Party with the evidence

made available by the management to the Enquiry Officer

with the written arguments submitted by both the sides, I

find no reason to say the enquiry finding being perverse

or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

affirmed by the Appellate Authority as disproportionate, I

arrive at conclusion of rejecting the reference for the

following :

REASONS

8.

Since the Domestic Enquiry is held as Fair and Proper

by passing a detailed order dated 18.02.2011 as provided

under Section 11 (a) of the ID Act, this tribunal has to

consider the evidence brought on record in the Domestic

Enquiry to appreciate the correctness or perversity of the

enquiry finding as well as the proportionality of the

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority affirmed

by the Appellate Authority and cannot consider other

evidence like one produced before this tribunal while

leading evidence on the Domestic Enquiry issue. Since

the documentary evidence produced by the management

in the Domestic Enquiry do support and corroborate its

contention that the I Party who without applying for leave

remained absent from 27.04.2003 to 09.06.2003 for 43 days

and 06.08.2003 to 25.08.2003 for 20 days when the Branch

Manager sent him a telegram dated 30.10.2003 directing

him to join the duty immediately he instead of reporting to

duty on 03.11.2003 simply sent a telegram as “extend leave

from 02.11.2003 to 15.11.2003” without whispering anything

about his absence from 27.06.2003 to 09.06.2003 for 43

days as well as from 06.08.2003 to 25.08.2003 for 20 days

and even after expiry of 15.11.2003 on 16.11.2003 he did

not report to duty and on the other hand on 19.11.2003

sent just a telegram as “extend leave upto 04.12.2003” and

then even on 05.12.2003 he did not report as a result of

which Branch Manager, Mandipet sent another telegram

dated 16.01.2004 followed by confirmatory letter directing

to join duty immediately and that his absence was being

treated as unauthorised with further instruction to appear

before Dr. T G Niranjan, Nandi Hospital for Medical checkup

if he was absent on medical grounds and inspite of it

without reporting for duty or before the said Bank’s Doctor

for medical examination he chose to send another bald

telegram dated 28.01.2004 as “extend leave upto

07.02.2004” without assigning any reason. Under these

circumstances, the Enquiry Officer did not commit any

folly in holding the charge as proved. When it is borne

out from the records the Disciplinary Authority after receipt

of the enquiry finding enclosing its copy and his proposal

of imposing the punishment of discharge called upon the

I Party for his reply he who wrote a letter dated 15.05.2004

for extending 30 days time to give his explanation since

did not care to submit his explanation/reply for over a

period of 30 days the Disciplinary Authority had no reason

to change his proposal of imposing the punishment of

discharge. When such a long absences without getting

sanction of leave and the attitude on the part of the I Party

not appearing before the Bank Doctor for medical

examination since do suggest that the reason of sick was

not true as such he did not dare to appear before the Bank

Doctor for confirmation of his stand that his absence was

due to sickness. Such a long absence and attitude on the

part of the I Party since do suggest that the he had no

mind to continue his service, the punishment imposed by

the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate

Authority cannot be said to be disproportionate to the

proved misconduct. In the result, having arrived at

conclusion that there are no reasons to say the finding of

the Enquiry Officer is perverse and punishment imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate

Authority is disproportionate, I pass the following

ORDER

The Reference is Rejected holding that the action of the

management of Corporation Bank in discharging Sh. A T

Ramareddy from the Services of the Bank is justified and

that his Legal Representative/Wife is not entitle for any

relief.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 20th January, 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3951

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1503-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

egkjk"Vª ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (17@2008) izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@124@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2008) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-12011/124/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 7th February, 2014

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 17/2008

I Party

The Joint Secretary,

BOMEU - Mumbai (AIBEA),

C/o Bank of Maharashtra,

343, 3rd Main SFS – 407,

4th Phase, Yelahanka New Town,

Bangalore – 560 064.

II Party

The Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

2d Floor, 15, Police Station Road,

Basawanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

APPEARANCES

I Party

: Shri Muralidhara, Advocate

II Party

: Shri Ramesh Upadhayay, Advocate

AWARD

1.

The Central Government vide order No. L-12011/

124/2007-IR(B-II) dated 21.02.2008 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Maharashtra, Bangalore Karnataka State in imposing

the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from

service on Shri Vijaya Singh Chavan, Ex-Daftary is

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

to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

17/2008 when notices were issued to both the parties, they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I party claim statement came to be filed on

28.03.2008, whereas, the counter statement of the II Party

on 01.07.2010.

3.

After completion of the pleading having regard to

certain allegations made in the claim statement a Preliminary

Issue was raised as to whether the Domestic Enquiry held

against the I Party by the II party is fair and proper?, and

after receiving evidence adduced by both the sides hearing

the arguments of the learned advocates since the said

issue by order dated 05.05.2011 came to be answered in

the Affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry conducted was

fair and proper, the points that now remains for my

consideration are :

Point No. 1 : Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer

charge is proved is perverse?

Point No. 2 : If not, whether the punishment imposed for

the proved misconduct is disproportionate?

Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?

4.

The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under :

5.

While the I Party workman Vijay Singh Chavan was

working as Daftry at Hospet Branch of the II Party he was

issued with charge sheet dated 04.03.2005 as under :

“Charge Sheet

It has been reported by our Hospet branch as under :—

1.

Hospet branch has allowed cash withdrawals of Rs.

15,000.00 on 16.04.2004, and Rs. 20,000.00 on 17.04.2004

and Rs. 35,000.00 on 23.04.2004 from the SB Account No.

9328 of Shri Arjunappa against the withdrawal slips.

Subsequently it was reported by Shri Arjunappa that he

had not signed those withdrawal slips. It was revealed

that those withdrawals were presented without the

passbook.

2.

Subsequent investigation into those payments had

revealed that B. Narayan Singh S/o Bhopal Singh had

withdrawn the amount by forging the signature of Shri

Arjunappa. He had informed that you and Shri M B Joshi

(Clerk) had advised him to withdraw the amount from the

account of Shri Arjunappa and provided him with the

3952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Specimen signature to Shri B Narayan Singh, for the

purpose of forging and advised him to approach Shri M B

Joshi only for getting the withdrawal slips posted without

passbook of account No. 9328. He further stated that out

of the money so withdrawn, he had paid Rs. 35,000.00 to

you on 23.04.2004.

In view of this the Bank charges you as under :

(a)

Your action of providing the Specimen signature to

Shri B Narayan Singh for the purpose of forging the

signature of Shri Arjunappa, is an act which is

subversive of the discipline, which is an act

prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which is an

act of gross misconduct under Cl. 19.5(j) of the Bi-

partite Settlement.

(b)

Your action of receiving Rs. 35,000.00 part of the

amount withdrawn by forging the signature, from

Shri B Narayan Singh, is an act which is subversive

of the discipline, which is an act prejudicial to the

interest of the bank, which is an act of gross

misconduct under Cl. 19.5(j) of the Bi-partite

Settlement.

Hence, it is decided to conduct Departmental enquiry

against you. The enquiry would be conducted by

Shri S.Sampath, Branch Manager, Service Branch,

Bangalore, who is appointed as Enquiry Officer who

will advise you about the date, time and place of the

enquiry.

You will be permitted to be defended by a

representative of a registered trade union of bank

employees of which you are a member on the date

first notified for the commencement of the enquiry;

and if you are not a member of any trade union of

bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a

representative of a registered trade union of the

employees of the bank in which you are employed.

OR

At the request of the said union by a representative

of the State Federation or all India Organisation to

which such union is affiliated. You will be permitted

to produce your evidence, to examine witnesses in

your defence and to cross-examine the witnesses

brought by the Bank against you at the enquiry.

Please note that the enquiry may be proceeded with

in your absence if you do not appear at the

appointed date, time and place of the enquiry.

Necessary documents in support of charge sheet

are enclosed, as detailed in the Annexure. Bank

reserves its right to add any documents. List of

witnesses will be made known in the course of

enquiry.”

6.

It appears as I Party did not give any reply/

explanation to the charge sheet the Disciplinary Authority

ordered for holding the Domestic Enquiry appointing

Sh. S Sampath, Branch Manager as Enquiry Officer and

Sh. C D Dilip Kumar, Manager as Presenting Officer and

the Enquiry Officer securing the presence of the I Party

observing the formalities of preliminary hearing since I

Party denied the charges against him while recording the

evidence of Sh. S M Pujari, Manager, Champapaet Branch,

Sh. Arjunappa, Customer, Sh. Mahendra Kumar G Jain,

Customer, Sh. Sha Ratan Chand, Customer, Sh. Vaktaram

Chowdary Customer and exhibiting Ex M-1 to Ex M- 26 the

detailed description of which are narrated in the annexure

and as CSE/I Party did not choose to either examine himself

or any witnesses but got exhibited one document i.e. the

CO Circular No. AX 1/VIG/Cir.55/2005 dated 04.01.2006 of

Vigilance Department as Ex D-1 after receiving the written

brief filed by the Defence Representative and Presenting

Officer the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to

the Disciplinary Authority on 12.06.2006 as Charges

stands proved. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing

second show cause notice and affording an opportunity

of hearing imposed the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement from Service and on appeal by the CSE/I Party

to Deputy General Manager and Appellate Authority he

also after affording an opportunity of hearing confirmed

the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Aggrieved by the same when the CSE/I Party approached

the ALC(C), Bellary for conciliation and as he submitted

FOC Report dated 11.12.2007 the Central Government made

this reference for adjudication.

7.

The CSE/I Party in his claim statement while claiming

that a false charge sheet was filed against him to save the

skin of the responsible officers for the alleged act of

passing the forged withdrawal slips and the Enquiry

Officer in a hurried manner without any direct or

circumstantial evidence against him having shown the

specimen signature of the customer Arjunappa to

Sh. Narayan Singh who allegedly withdrawn a sum of

Rs. 15000.00, 25000.00 and 35000.00 dated 16.04.2004,

17.04.2004 and 23.04.2004 forging his signatures held him

guilty of the charges same is perverse and even otherwise

the punishment of compulsory retirement is

disproportionate submits that he is entitle for

reinstatement with backwages, continuity of services and

all other consequential benefits. Interalia, in the counter

statement it is contended the enquiry report being based

on the evidence made available by the management and

punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate

Authority being proportionate, the reference is liable to

be rejected.

8.

As already adverted to by me above the Domestic

Enquiry being held as fair and proper observing that the

non-examination of Sh. Narayana Singh author of Ex M-25

alleging that CSE and M B Joshi, Clerk shown him the

specimen signature of Arjunappa the Account holder and

assisted him to forge his signatures on the withdrawal

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3953

slips whether sufficient to accept the charge is a matter to

be considered while considering the finding of the Enquiry

Officer now I have to appreciate the evidence brought on

record by the management as to whether same is sufficient

to support the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge stands

proved.

9.

The evidence of none of the five witnesses examined

by the management point out finger towards the CSE/I

Party either directly or indirectly he having shown the

specimen signature of the SB Account holder Arjunappa

to Narayan Singh or receiving from his part of the

withdrawan amount to to the extent of Rs. 35000.00 who

allegedly submitted forged vouchers and drawn amount

from his account. The Enquiry Officer without testifying

Narayan Singh allegedly gave a letter of confession having

withdrawn money by submitting forged withdrawal slips

from the account of Arjunappa being assisted by Sh. M B

Joshi, Clerk and CSE/I Party through letter produced at Ex

M-25 could not have placed reliance on such a letter. Even

if the said Narayan Singh admitted having submitted forged

withdrawal slip to draw the money from the account of SB

A/c Arjunappa unless as regard his allegations that he

was aided by CSE/I Party by showing the specimen

signature of Arjunappa testified himself by giving evidence

in the enquiry such a statement that finds in his letter at Ex

M-25 could not have been relied upon by the Enquiry

Officer. The learned advocate appearing for the II Party

who was unable to point out any circumstantial or direct

evidence against the CSE/I Party he having advised

B Narayan Singh to withdraw the amount from the account

of Sh. Arjunappa showing him the specimen signature for

the purpose of forging his signatures on the vouchers

and alter receiving Rs. 35000.00 from him simply submitted

that since the CSE/I Party did not give any reply to the

charge sheet that itself is sufficient to held him guilty of

the charges levelled against him. With due respect to the

learned advocate appearing for the II party his argument

is bereft of any merits because only because the CSE/I

Party failed to give his reply to the charge sheet itself is

proof of the charges levelled against him there was no

need for the management to proceed to hold the Domestic

Enquiry. In other words as CSE failed to give his reply to

the charge sheet it can be presumed that he denied the

charges as such the management decided to hold the

Domestic Enquiry. Therefore, unless the management

placed cogent evidence before the Enquiry Officer, the

Enquiry Officer only because the CSE had not given reply

to the Charge Sheet could not held charge as being proved.

In my considered view in the absence of Sh. Narayan Singh

testifying himself as regards the contents of his letter at

Ex M-25 involving I Party the Enquiry Officer erred in

placing reliance on Ex M-25 in coming to the conclusion

the charges as stands proved. In other words, in the

absence of the evidence of Sh. Narayan Singh the Enquiry

Officer holding the charge as stands proved is perverse

and is not sustainable.

10.

Since the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of such

a perverse finding imposed the punishment of compulsory

retirement and same came to be upheld by the Appellate

Authority they are unsustainable. Accordingly, while

answering the Point No. 1 in the affirmative and Point No.

2 as does not survive for consideration since the II Party

failed to rebut the evidence of the I Party that he is not

gainfully employed after receiving the impugned

punishment he is entitle for reinstatement with full

backwages, continuity of service and all other

consequential benefits that he would have received in the

absence of the impugned punishment of compulsory

retirement. In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the action of

the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Bangalore

Karnataka State in imposing the punishment of

compulsory retirement from service on Shri Vijaya Singh

Chavan, Ex-Daftary is not justified and that he is entitle

for Reinstatement into Service with full backwages,

continuity of service and all other consequential benefits

that he would have received in the absence of the impugned

punishment of compulsory retirement.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 7th February 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE – I

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management in

Domestic Enquiry :

Ex M-1

: Charge Sheet No. AX 27.RO.STAFF.DA-H-

13.2004-05 dated 4.3.2005 issued by the DA

to CSE.

Ex M-2

: Certified copy of Muster Roll of Hospet

Branch for the month of April 2004.

Ex M-3

: Account opening form of SB Account No.

9328 of Shri Arjunappa.

Ex M-4

: Withdrawal slip dated 16.4.2004 for Rs. 15,000

of SB A/c No. 9328.

Ex M-5

: Withdrawal slip dated 17.4.2004 for Rs. 20,000

of SB A/c No. 9328.

Ex M-6

: Withdrawal slip dated 23.4.2004 for Rs. 35,000

of SB A/c No. 9328.

Ex M-7

: Office copy of police complaint dated

12.5.2004 lodged by Hospet Branch with

Town Police Station, Hospet.

Ex M-8

: Acknowledgement No. 0169153 dated

14.5.2004 issued by the Town Police Station,

Hospet, for above complaint.

3954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex M-9

: Certified copy of Specimen signature slip of

SB A/c. No. 9328

Ex M-10

: Certified copy of statement of account of SB

A/c. No. 9328 of Arjunappa for the period

01.01.2003 to 10.05.2004

Ex M-11

: Office copy of letter dated 27.04.2004 of

Hospet Branch to Regional Manager,

Bangalore, reporting the incidents

Ex M-12

: Letter dated 30.4.2004 of Hospet Branch to

Town Police Station, Hospet

Ex M-13

: Letter dated 7.5.2004 of Bangalore Regional

Office to Hospet Branch

Ex M-14

: Office Credit Voucher dated 31.5.2004 for Rs.

10,000/-

Ex M-15

: Office Credit Voucher dated 31.5.2004 for Rs.

20,000/-

Ex M-16

: Office Credit Voucher dated 16.6.2004 for Rs.

10,000/-

Ex M-17

: Office Credit Voucher dated 1.7.2004 for Rs.

10,000/-

Ex M-18

: Office Credit Voucher dated 12.7.2004 for Rs.

19,000/-

Ex M-19

: Office Credit Voucher dated 28.7.2004 for Rs.

1,000/-

Ex M-20

: Letter dated 28.7.2004 of Hospet Branch to

Bangalore Regional Office

Ex M-21

: Cheque No. 181176 dated 15.4.2004 for Rs.

20,000/- issued by G. S. Palrecha

Ex M-22

: Cheque No. 181186 dated 30.4.2004 for Rs.

30,000/- issued by G. S. Palrecha

Ex M-23

: Copy of pass book of SB A/c No. 9328

Ex M-24

: Letter dated 27.4.2005 of Shri Arjunappa to

Hospet Branch

Ex M-25

: Letter dated 29.5.2004 of Shri B. Narayan

Singh to Hospet Branch

Ex M-26

: Letter dated 31.5.2004 of Shri Bhopal Singh

to Hospet Branch

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1504-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds in gsrq fyad vfèkdkjh

ds :i esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;

ua- 2] fnYyh ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh Jh gjcal dqekj lDlSuk dks

fnukad 01&05&2014 ls 30&05&2014 rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa

rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj

lksairs gSaA

¹la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh-,y-,l--II (Hkkx)º

,l- ds- flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1504.—The President is pleased to entrust the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi to Sh. Harbansh

Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Delhi w.e.f. 01-05-2014 to 30-05-2014 or till further

orders, Whichever is earlier.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II (Pt.)]

S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1505-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds fjDr in gsrq fyad

vfèkdkjh ds jQi esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh Mk- eatw fuxe dks

28&04&2014 ls N% ekg dh vof/ rd vFkok fu;fer in/kj.k

dh fu;qfDr gksus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh

igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lksairs gSaA

¹la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh ,y ,l--II (Hkkx)º

,l-ds- flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014

S.O. 1505.—The President is pleased to entrust the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur to Dr. Manju Nigam,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for a

period of six months with effect from 28-04-2014 or till the

post is filled on regular basis or until further orders

whichever is earlier.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II (Pt.)]

S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1506-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 150@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@50@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 150/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3955

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/50/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI

I.D. No. 150/2012

Shri Raj Pal Singh,

S/o Shri Heera Lal,

R/o Village Bhiasru Khurd,

Post Sapla,

Distt, Rohtak, Haryana.

.....Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H. No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Raj Pal Singh was engaged as a security guard

by the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of

the Corporation. He served there since 07.08.2010. In

October, 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

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-30012/50/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 15.10.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Raj Pal Singh, S/o Shri Heera Lal from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 20.08.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Raj Pal Singh

pleading therein that he was engaged as Security Guard

by the Contractor on 07.08.2010. He performed his duties

at Tikri Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and

punctually. He was made to work overtime, for which

overtime allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime

allowance for overtime work performed by him, which

demand irked the contractor. His services were illegally

terminated in August, 2011, without giving one months’

notice or pay in lieu thereof. His salary for last several

months remained unpaid. Action of termination of his

services is illegal and void ab initio. He claims

reinstatement in service of the Contractor with continuity

and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in October, 2011

and accepted a sum of Rs.5556.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 07.08.2010, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

3956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 30.07.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

03.04.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 07.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs.7592.00 Claimant resigned the job and took

full and final settlement of his dues in October, 2011.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues in cash. Facts unfolded

by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-assailed

testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it contains

some inherent defects, having bearing on its veracity. Since

facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any

defect, which may give inference to the effect that he is

not a reliable witness, his testimony is found to be

acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 20.08.2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dated : April 3, 2014

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1507-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 152@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@52@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 152/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/52/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 152/2012

Shri Naresh Chander,

S/o Shri Ram,

R/o VPO Baproda, Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana

…Workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3957

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s IOCL, TikariKalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H. No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Naresh Chander was engaged as a gunman by

the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of the

Corporation. He served there since 01.08.2010. On

30.03.2012, he resigned his job and obtained full and final

settlement of his dues from the Contractor. Subsequently,

he perceived that the amount, paid to him by the Contractor

towards full and final settlement of his dues, was meager.

He raised a demand for reinstatement in service of the

Contactor, which demand was not conceded to. Therefore,

he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since

his claim was contested by the Contractor, 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-30012/52/2012-

IR(M), New Delhi dated 28.10.2012 with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Naresh Chander, S/o Shri Ram from Indian Oil

Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 20.08.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Naresh Chander

pleading therein that he was engaged as Security Guard

by the Contractor on 01.08.2010. He performed his duties

at Tikri Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and

punctually. He was made to work overtime, for which

overtime allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime

allowance for overtime work performed by him, which

demand irked the contractor. His services were illegally

terminated in October, 2011, without giving one months’

notice or pay in lieu thereof. His salary for last several

months remained unpaid. Action of termination of his

services is illegal and void ab initio. He claims

reinstatement in service of the Contractor with continuity

and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in March, 2012

and accepted a sum of Rs.7408.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 01.08.2010, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 30.07.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross- examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

3958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

03.04.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs.8372.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 30.03.2012.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues through cheque

No.001000 dated 30.03.2012 drawn for a sum of Rs.7408.00

on Dwarka branch of Bank of Baroda. Photocopy of the

said cheque is Ex.MW1/3. Facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

remained un-assailed. An un-assailed testimony is to be

accepted as true, unless it contains some inherent defects,

having bearing on its veracity. Since facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any defect, which may

give inference to the effect that he is not a reliable witness,

his testimony is found to be acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 20.08.2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : April 3, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1508-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 5@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@70@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/

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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/70/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 5/2013

Shri Rajender Singh

S/o Shri Chunni Lal,

R/o Village & Post Office Kutub Garh,

Delhi

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H. No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043

.....Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3959

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Rajender Singh was engaged as a security guard

by the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Depot, Delhi, of

the Corporation. He served there since 19.11.2010. In

November, 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

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-30012/70/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 20.12.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Rajender Singh, S/o Shri Chunni Lal from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 03.10.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Rajender Singh

pleading therein that he was engaged as Security Guard

by the Contractor on 19.11.2010. He performed his duties

at Tikri Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and

punctually. He was made to work overtime, for which

overtime allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime

allowance for overtime work performed by him, which

demand irked the contractor. His services were illegally

terminated in October, 2011, without giving one months’

notice or pay in lieu thereof. His salary for last several

months remained unpaid. Action of termination of his

services is illegal and void ab initio. He claims

reinstatement in service of the Contractor with continuity

and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in October, 2011

and accepted a sum of Rs.1365.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 19.11.2010, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 07.08.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

28.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 19.11.2010. Claimant resigned

the job and took full and final settlement of his dues on

12.11.2011. Receipt was executed by him in that regard,

which is Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues in cash. Facts

unfolded by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-

assailed testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it

3960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contains some inherent defects, having bearing on its

veracity. Since facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere

suffers from any defect, which may give inference to the

effect that he is not a reliable witness, his testimony is

found to be acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 03.10. 2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of Section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 28-3-2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1509-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 6@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@71@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/

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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/71/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI

I.D. No. 6/2013

Shri Shrikishan,

S/o Shri Polu Ram,

R/o Village and Post Office Kultara,

Distt. Rohtak, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s. IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H. No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s. Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3961

2.

Shri Shrikishan was engaged as a security guard by

the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of the

Corporation. He served there since 18.11.2010. On

30.03.2012, he resigned his job and obtained full and final

settlement of his dues from the Contractor. Subsequently,

he perceived that the amount, paid to him by the Contractor

towards full and final settlement of his dues, was meager.

He raised a demand for reinstatement in service of the

Contactor, which demand was not conceded to. Therefore,

he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since

his claim was contested by the Contractor, 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-30012/71/2012-

IR(M), New Delhi dated 20.12.2012 with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s. Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Shrikishan, S/o Shri Polu Ram from Indian Oil

Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 01.10.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Shrikishan pleading

therein that he was engaged as Security Guard by the

Contractor on 18.11.2010. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated in

October, 2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay

in lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in March, 2012

and accepted a sum of Rs. 8772.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 19.11.2010, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 07.08.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

28.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 19.11.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs. 8772.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 30.03.2012.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/3. He was paid his dues through cheque

No.001005 dated 30.03.2012 drawn for a sum of Rs. 8772.00

on Dwarka branch of Bank of Baroda. Photocopy of the

said cheque is Ex.MW1/3. Facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

remained un-assailed. An un-assailed testimony is to be

accepted as true, unless it contains some inherent defects,

having bearing on its veracity. Since facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any defect, which may

give inference to the effect that he is not a reliable witness,

his testimony is found to be acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

3962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 03.10.2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of Section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R. K. Yadav, Presiding Officer

Dated : 28.03.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1510-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 7@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@72@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/

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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/72/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI

I.D. No. 7/2013

Shri Jarnail Singh

S/o Shri Bhola Ram,

R/o Village Khair Pur

Post Kanouda,

Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s. IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s. Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Jarnail Singh was engaged as a gunman by the

Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Depot, Delhi, of the

Corporation. He served there since 01.08.2010. In

November 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3963

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-30012/72/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 20.12.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Jarnail Singh, S/o Shri Bhola Ram from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 11.10.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Jarnail Singh

pleading therein that he was engaged as gunman by the

Contractor on 01.08.2010. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated in

October 2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay in

lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in October 2011

and accepted a sum of Rs.3383.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 01.08.2010, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 07.08.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

28.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs.7358.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 12.11.2011.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues in cash. Facts unfolded

by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-assailed

testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it contains

some inherent defects, having bearing on its veracity. Since

facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any

defect, which may give inference to the effect that he is

not a reliable witness, his testimony is found to be

acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from October

2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

3964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 28.03.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1511-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 8@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@73@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2013)

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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No. L-30012/73/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 8/2013

Shri Om Prakash

S/o Shri Chattar Singh,

R/O Village and Post Office Kalanour,

Distt. Rohtak, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s. IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s. Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Om Prakash was engaged as a security guard

by the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of

the Corporation. He served there since 01.08.2010. In

September 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

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-30012/73/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 20.12.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s. Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Om Prakash, S/o Shri Chattar Singh from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 26.10.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Om Prakash

pleading therein that he was engaged as Security Guard

by the Contractor on 01.08.2010. He performed his duties

at Tikri Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and

punctually. He was made to work overtime, for which

overtime allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3965

allowance for overtime work performed by him, which

demand irked the contractor. His services were illegally

terminated on 26.10.2011, without giving one months’

notice or pay in lieu thereof. His salary for last several

months remained unpaid. Action of termination of his

services is illegal and void ab initio. He claims

reinstatement in service of the Contractor with continuity

and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in September

2011 and accepted a sum of Rs.7085.00 towards full and

final settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself

resigned the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor

to terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a

security guard on 01.08.2010, as projected by the

Contractor. His wages were paid in time. His services were

not satisfactory. He used to behave indecently on many

occasions. Since the Contractor has not taken any action

to dispense with the services of the claimant, there was no

occasion to give one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof,

besides retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 07.08.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

28.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs.8374.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 15.09.2011.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues in cash. Facts unfolded

by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-assailed

testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it contains

some inherent defects, having bearing on its veracity. Since

facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any

defect, which may give inference to the effect that he is

not a reliable witness, his testimony is found to be

acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 26.10.2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 28.03.2014

3966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1512-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 148@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@48@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 148/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/48/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D.No.148/2012

Shri Jai Pal,

S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal,

Village Khareiti,

Tehsil Julana, Distt. Jind,

Haryana

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Jai Pal was engaged as a gunman by the

Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of the

Corporation. He served there since 01.08.2010. On

30.03.2012, he resigned his job and obtained full and final

settlement of his dues from the Contractor. Subsequently,

he perceived that the amount, paid to him by the Contractor

towards full and final settlement of his dues, was meager.

He raised a demand for reinstatement in service of the

Contactor, which demand was not conceded to. Therefore,

he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since

his claim was contested by the Contractor, 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-30012/48/2012-

IR(M), New Delhi dated 28.10.2012 with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Jai Pal, S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal from Indian Oil

Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 02.09.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Jai Pal pleading

therein that he was engaged as Security Guard by the

Contractor on 01.08.2010. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated in

September 2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay

in lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3967

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in March 2012

and accepted a sum of Rs.9018.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 01.08.2010, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 30.07.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

03.04.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs.8372.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 30.03.2012.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues through cheque

No.001006 dated 30.03.2012 drawn for a sum of

Rs.9018.00.00 on Dwarka branch of Bank of Baroda.

Photocopy of the said cheque is Ex.MW1/3. Facts

unfolded by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-

assailed testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it

contains some inherent defects, having bearing on its

veracity. Since facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere

suffers from any defect, which may give inference to the

effect that he is not a reliable witness, his testimony is

found to be acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 02.09.2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : April 3, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1513-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 149@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@41@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

3968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 149/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-30012/41/2012 -IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 149/2012

Shri Jagvir Singh,

S/o Shri Sukhvir Singh,

R/o Plot No.75, Sainik Enclave Part I,

Jharoda Road, CRPF Camp,

Najafgarh, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2.

M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H. No. 43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

…Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2.

Shri Jagvir Singh was engaged as a gunman by the

Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of the

Corporation. He served there since 01.08.2010. In

September 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

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-30012/41/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 28.12.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Jagvir Singh, S/o Shri SukhvirSingh from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 29.08.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Jagvir Singh

pleading therein that he was engaged as gunman by the

Contractor on 1.08.2010. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated in

August 2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay in

lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4.

The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in September

2011 and accepted a sum of Rs.7019.00 towards full and

final settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself

resigned the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor

to terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a

security guard on 07.08.2010, as projected by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3969

Contractor. His wages were paid in time. His services were

not satisfactory. He used to behave indecently on many

occasions. Since the Contractor has not taken any action

to dispense with the services of the claimant, there was no

occasion to give one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof,

besides retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6.

Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 30.07.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7.

Shri Ajay Pandey, Officer Incharge, tendered his

affidavit as evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity

could not be accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey through an ordeal of cross examination. No

other witness was examined by the Contractor. Corporation

opted not to examine any witness.

8.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9.

Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

03.04.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. . His last drawn

wages were Rs. 7592.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues in September

2011. Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/2. He was paid his dues in cash. Facts unfolded

by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-assailed

testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it contains

some inherent defects, having bearing on its veracity. Since

facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any

defect, which may give inference to the effect that he is

not a reliable witness, his testimony is found to be

acceptable.

10.

As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from August 2011.

11.

The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12.

No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : April 3, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1514-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kksjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 53@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@3@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/

2006) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-17012/3/2006-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

3970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 53/2006

Sh. Satish Kumar

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-17012/3/2006-IR(M)) dated 23.6.2006

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal

for the adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Bhiwani in

terminating the services of Sh. Satish kumar S/o Sh.

Chet Ram Peon w.e.f 30.6.2003 is just and legal? If

not to what relief the workman is entitled to?

On 24.07.2006 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No.53/2006 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.

Notice to claimant/workman was sent on address

given by workman. His notice received back without service

due wrong address given by workman. Hence my Ld.

Predecessor passed no dispute Award on 9.10.2006.

Against no dispute award. Workman /Claimant filed

Civil Writ-Petition No. 9328 of 2010 on 7.5.2010 in the

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab And Haryana at Chandigarh.

Which was allowed on 20.11.2011 and no dispute award

dated 9.10.2006 passed by my Ld. Predecessor has set

aside and the proceedings have been ordered to be revived

and the workman was directed to submit a statement of

claim within one month from the date of receipt of the

certified copy of the order of the High Court .

On the basis of aforesaid order passed by Hon’ble

High Court my Ld. Predecessor on 14.12.2011 issued notice

to the other party or 21.2.2012. Directed office to put up

the main file and tag statement of claim with that main file.

Workman on 14.12.2011 filed claim statement. Wherein

he stated as follows:-

1.

That the present Statement of Claim is being filed

before his Hon’ble Tribunal, as per the directions of the

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,

passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suryakant in CWP No.

9328/2010, titled as ‘Satish kumar Vs. The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another’, whereby

the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to set aside the order

dated 09.10.2006 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and

further pleased to direct the workman to submit the claim

statement within one month from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of the said order. The certified copy of the

order was applied on the same date the order was passed

i.e 20.10.2011 and the same was supplied to the workman

on 15.11.2001, and accordingly , the present statement of

claim is field before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

2.

That the workman was appointed as Peon, on

permanent basis, by the management w.e.f 28.3.2003,

through the process of Employment Exchange and the

workman worked honestly, diligently , sincerely upto the

entire satisfaction of the management. However, the

management without any prior notice or intimation, all of

a sudden dismissed the workman from the services with

effect from 30.6.2003. The workman’s last drawn salary

was Rs. 4150/- per month.

3.

That although the workman was dismissed from the

service, but the management used to take the work from

the workman but he was neither paid the wages and

benefits as per the rules and labour laws under the

Industrial Disputes Act.

4.

That it is respectfully submitted that the workman

had worked with the management without any break up.

In fact, the Branch Manager of the Management was not

happy with the appointment of the workman whose

appointment was made through the process of

Employment Exchange and that is why the said Branch

Manager of the Management started harassing and

indiscriminating the workman without any rhyme and

reason right from the day of appointment of the workman

in the said Branch, with sole motive to get his own man/

relative employed with the Corporation / Management .

With this sole illegal and unlawful aim in his mind, the

Branch Manager of the Corporation/management hatched

conspiracy with the workman and dismissed the workman

from the permanent service of the management with effect

from 30.6.2003, without any rhyme and reason and that

too without serving any prior notice or pay in lieu thereof,

which is totally against the established labour law.

However, the workman continued with his job till the year

2006.

5.

That it is also pertinent to mention herein that on

30.6.2003, a robbery was committed by some robbers at

the Branch office of the management and this gave

opportunity to the Branch Manager to dismiss the

workman from the service. In the said robbery, a huge sum

of Rs. 12,69,554.20 paise was robbed by the robbers.

Branch Manager and other senior officials of the

Management made workman as one of the witness of the

said robbery despite the fact that the workman did not see

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3971

by face any robbers/culprits involved in the said robbery

and when the workman expressed his inability to become

a witness in the said robbery case, the Branch Manager of

the management , who was looking for such an

opportunity, dismissed the workman from the service all

of a sudden , even without serving any prior notice or

payment in lieu of the notice period.

6.

That it is further pertinent to mention here that the

Management persistently insisted the workman to give

evidence against the culprits in identifying the robbers,

despite the fact that the senior officials who were also

present in the Branch at the time of robbery must had seen

the robbers/accused did not come forward in favour of

the Management to indentify the robbers/culprits/accused

and on the contrary the workman had been made

scapegoat to identify the robbers despite the fact that the

workman did not see any of the robbers by face and was

thus unable to identify them.

7.

That it is also pertinent to mention here that the

senior officials, more particularly Branch Manager of the

Management also used to take work from the workman by

alluring and inducing that if the workman would give

evidence against the accused/robbers in their

identification, the Management would re-employ the

Workman on the permanent post.

8.

That it is further pertinent to mention here that under

the said pretext as narrated in the preceding para, the

Management also used to take the work from the workman

at very less wages of its own, against the labour laws,

which fact is duly established from the certificate dated

30.9.2003 issued by the Branch Manager of the

Management.

9.

That the Management also used to take work from

the Workman even after his dismissal/termination from

the services on the post of Peon, but the management did

not pay the salary and wages/benefits as per the rules and

regularizations of the management and the labour laws.

Working of the Workman with the Management is also

duly confirmed and established by the summons dated

15.5.2004 and 14.2.2006 issued to the workman by the Court

of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-

Fast Track Court, Bhiwani in FIR Case No. 124/2003 for

workman’s evidence on 28.05.2004 and 23.3.2006

respectively . Thus, it is crystal clear that the workman

rendered his services beyond the periods of 140 days

continuously but the management did not pay him the

salary and wages and other benefits as rules and labour

laws.

The copy of legal notice of the workman, copy of

the letter dated 30.9.2003 and copy of summons dated

14.5.2004 and 14.2.2006 are filed herewith to substantiate

the claim of the workman by reflecting that the workman

had been continuously working with the Management till

the year 2006 but the management did not pay the workman

his wages, benefits as per the service rules and principles

of labour laws.

10.

That, in fact, the workman has been made scapegoat

with regard to the incident of robbery which had taken

place in the Branch on 30.6.2003. It is also pertinent to

mention here that incident of robbery had taken place in

the presence of several officials, senior and juniors, but

despite seeing the robbers by face by the said officials,

none of them came forward to identify the robbers and on

the contrary, all the above said officials pressurized the

workman for identification of the robbers/accused

although the workman had never seen the robbers/accused

by face. A bare perusal of the order dated 4.12.2004 in

case FIR No. 124 dated 30.6.2003 clearly illustrates that

the workman was made as star witness to the said crime/

robbery.

11.

That the act of the management in dismissing /

terminating the workman from the service is the result of

vindictive attitude of the officials of the Management at

the Bhiwani Branch.

12.

That feeling aggrieved by the action of the

Management, the workman got issued a legal demand

notice dated 30.6.2005 through Sh. Amar Lal, Advocate, to

the Management, whereby the Management was called

upon to reinstate the workman in the service with full back

wages and all consequential benefits. The said notice was

sent through Registered A/D post and the same was duly

served upon the Management . A copy of the said legal

notice was also sent to the Divisional Manager of the

Management at Karnal. However, despite service of the

said notice, the Management did not act in accordance

with the labour laws rather refused to reinstate the workman

on service.

13.

That upon failure of the Management to comply

with the requisition of the above said legal demand notice,

the workman filed his claim before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Faridabad where reconciliation

proceedings were conducted and failed and the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner submitted failure report to the

Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide No.

8(26)2005 ALF dated 31.1.2006, mentioning wrong address

of the workman in the same.

14.

That Ministry of Labour , Govt of India, thereafter,

referred the reference for adjudication to this Hon’ble

Court, to the following effect:-

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Bhiwani in

terminating the services of Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh.

Chet Ram Peon w.e.f 30.6.2003 is just and legal? If

not to what relief the workman is entitled to?

15.

That the aforesaid termination /dismissal of the

workman from the services is totally illegal, unjust and

malafide for the amongst following reasons:-

3972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a)

That the workman has been victimized for no fault

of this and he was illegally terminated without giving

any reason and against the service rules and

regularition and principle of labour laws.

(b)

That the job against which he was working is still

continuing and was of permanent and regular nature.

(c)

That no notice was given nor payment in lieu of the

notice period was offered or paid to the workman at

the time of termination of his service.

(d)

That the workman was meted with hostile

discrimination as narrated in the present statement

of claim and even he was thrown out from the job

illegally.

(e)

That the workman had been working under the direct

control and supervision of the Management.

(f)

That the Management has also taken fresh hands to

the employment after terminating the services of the

workman.

(g)

That the workman has not committed any

misconduct whatsoever.

(h)

That no service compensation was either offered or

paid to the workman at the time of his illegal

termination .

(j)

That the impugned termination of the workman from

the service is against the principle of natural justice

and labour law established under the statue.

16.

That as stated above, dismissal of the workman from

the service without serving any notice or payment of salary

in lieu of the notice period is absolutely against the labour

laws, illegal, unlawful and is against the principle of natural

justice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and that is

why the Central Government after considering all the above

aspect of the matter made the reference for adjudication

by this Hon’ble Court.

17.

That right from the day of his illegal and unlawful

termination /dismissal from the service, the workman is

unemployed and despite his best efforts, he could not get

only employment and also because of the fact that the

Management kept on alluring the workman that he would

be re-employed by the management in case the workman

identify the robbers in the said FIR case No. 124 dated

30.6.2003.

18.

That the workman is liable to be reinstated in the

service with full back wages since the day of his termination

/dismissal i.e. 30.6.2003 till his reinstatement with all

consequential benefits.

19.

That the workman has also incurred substantial

expenses on account of litigation charges and the workman

is also entitled to the costs of the litigation from the

Management.

PRAYER

In view of the above said facts and circumstances,

it is , therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Tribunal may kindly be pleased to:

(I)

Pass an award in favour of the workman and against

the Management thereby directing the Management

to reinstate the workman on duty, with full back

wages and all consequential benefits, along with

interest @ 18% p.a.

(II)

Costs of the litigations may also be passed to the

workman;

(III)

Any such further relief or reliefs, which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of

natural justice, may also be passed in favour of the

workman and against the workman.

Management in reply to claim statement filed its written

statement on 19.5.012. Wherein it mentioned as follows:-

1.

Section 2 oo bb Industrial Disputes Act 1956 as

amended upto date states that there is no illegal termination

of the service of the workman due to non-renewal of the

contract of employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on expiry of the contract. The claimant/

workman/Sh. Satish Kumar was appointed as temporary

peon at B.O. Bhiwani for a fixed period w.e.f. from 31.3.2003

to 23.6.2003 vide appointment letter dated 28.3.2003 of

Branch Manager , Bhiwani with a monthly salary of

Rs. 4150/- per month. At the time of appointment the

claimant had also given an undertaking dated 31.3.2003

that, he will not claim for absorption in the management

on account of his appointment. Letter dated 28.3.2003 is

annexed as Annexure A. Undertaking dated 31.3.2003 is

annexed as Annexure B.

2.

Provisions of 25 F of the Industrial disputes act

were and are inapplicable. The Claimant as employed on a

purely contractual basis which was temporary in nature

for 85 days as peon. At the end of the 85th day the

employment of the claimant came to an end as per the

terms and conditions of the letter dated 28.3.2003.

REPLY ON MERITS

1.

The contents of Paragraph 1 of the statement of

claim are a matter of record.

2.

That contents of para 2 to the extent they state that

the workman was appointed as peon on a permanent basis

are denied. The workman was appointed on a temporary

basis for 85 days vide letter dated 28.3.2003, through the

process of employment exchange. It is wrong and denied

that the services of the claimant were terminated suddenly.

Since the appointment was for 85 days it came to

end on the expiry the said on 23.6.2003 and not suddenly

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3973

as stated in the claim. As such requirement of any kind of

notice did not exist.

3.

That contents of para 3 are denied. That after the

expiry of 85 days, contract of the claimant came to end

and the claimant was not allowed to work further by the

management.

4.

That contents of para 4 are denied except to the

extent they state that the claimant/workman was made

through the process of employment exchange. The

allegation of harassment and indiscrimination is absolutely

baseless since the workman worked for the period eligible

to him. The Branch Manager has no motive to get his own

man/relative employed with the Corporation allegations

levied are false and vehemently denied. Further the

services of the workman came to end w.e.f 23.6.2003 and

he did not attend the office thereafter. Copy of the

attendance register is annexed as Annexure C.

5.

That since the appointment was for 85 day only on

account of seasonal rush of work and the claimant/Sh.

Satish Kumar had signed the letter-dated 28.3.2003, so the

question of serving any prior notice does not arise. The

allegation that the management used the opportunity of

dismissing him by naming him culprit in the robbery that

took place in the Branch on 30.6.2003 is baseless.

6.

That it is strongly and vehemently denied that the

management asked the workman to provide evidence

against the culprits in identifying the robbers. It is denied

that the claimant was being made scapegoat to identify

the robbers.

7.

That the allegation made by the claimant/Sh. Satish

Kumar is false as the Branch Manager and other officials

never pressurized the claimant to provide evidence against

the robbers. Since the post of the workman was purely on

temporary basis, the question of reemploying him on

permanent basis is false.

8.

That appointment of the claimant /workman was

temporary in nature for 85 days w.e.f. 31.3.2003 to 23.3.2003

as per latter ref: Temporary peon dated 28.3.2003. As per

attendance register, he attended his duties from 31.3.2003

and discharged it on 23.6.2003. Attendance register is

annexed as Annexure C.

The management never re-employed him and the

question of paying very less wages is fictitious, false and

fabricated.

9.

That it is obvious from letter 28.3.2003 that the

appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period

of 85 days. The claimant /workman was never reappointed

in the Corporation. The summons dated 15.5.2004 and

14.2.2006 were in response to the Legal Notice dated

30.6.2005 given by Advocate Sh. Amar Lal Hans.

10.

That on the day of incident of robbery i.e. 30.6.2003,

the claimant/ Sh. Satish Kumar was present in the office to

collect his balance salary though the claimant was not on

the roll of Corporation on that day. It is denied that the

claimant was ever pressurized by the management to

identity the robbers. Copy of the deposition is annexed as

Annexure D.

11.

That the claimant /Sh. Satish Kumar was appointed

as temporary peon at B.O. Bhiwani for a fixed period w.e.f

from 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003 vide appointment letter dated

28.3.2003 of Branch Manager , Bhiwani . At the time of

appointment the claimant had also given an undertaking

dated 31.3.2003 that he will not claim for absorption in LIC

on account of his appointment.

12.

That reply to the notice dated 30.6.2005was given

by the Sr. Divisional Manager , Karnal vide letter dated

19.7.2005. The term of the claimant was from 31.3.2003 to

23.6.2003 and was never extended after the expiry of the

term. Since he had not completed 240 days of continuous

service in a calendar year so he was not entitled to the

protection of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Reply dated 19.7.2005 is annexed as Annexure E.

13.

That contents of para 13 are denied for want of

knowledge.

14.

The claimant was appointed as temporary peon in

B.O. Bhiwani for a fixed period of 85 days from 31.3.2003 to

23.6.2003. His services automatically terminated on the

last day of the contract i.e. 23.6.2003.

15.

That claimant/Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Chet Ram

was appointed in the LIC of India, B.O. –Bhiwani as

temporary peon on purely temporary basis for a fixed period

of 85 days w.e.f 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003. The service of

claimant /Sh. Satish Kumar stood automatically terminated

after the expiry of his term i.e. w.e.f 24.6.2003. Since the job

was temporary in nature, it was not required to be give to

him any notice period.

16.

That since the job was temporary in nature no notice

period was required to be served. Further claimant was

paid salary for the period he had worked in the Branch.

17.

That the allegation leveled by claimant/Sh. Satish

Kumar on the management is totally unjustified. The

contract was only for 85 days and terminated on 24.6.2003.

The management never told the claimant of re-employment

if the claimant identified the robbers.

18.

That the term of the claimant was from 31.3.2003 to

23.6.2006 and was never extended after the expiry of term

on 23.6.2003. Since the claimant had not completed 240

days continuous services in a calendar year so he was not

entitled to the protection of section 25(F) of Industrial

dispute act.

19.

That the management is not bound to pay the

litigation charges to the workman as the charges leveled

by him are baseless, false and denied.

3974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Claimant on 26.7.2012 filed Rejoinder. Wherein he stated

as follows:—

1.

That contents of para No.1 of the preliminary

submissions and objections are wrong and hence denied.

It is emphatically denied that there is no illegal termination

of the service of the workman as per Section 2 oo bb of the

Act on the ground muchless as alleged or otherwise. It is

emphatically denied that the employment of the workman

was on contract basis and temporary for a fixed period

from 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003. It is emphatically denied that

the claimant tendered undertaking dated 31.3.2003 that he

will not claim for absorption in the Management on account

of his appointment. Undertaking is false and frivolous .

As a matter of fact, the workman was appointed as peon,

on permanent basis by the Management through the

process of Employment Exchange and the workman had

been working honestly , diligently, sincerely upto the entire

satisfaction of the Management and the workman was

made a scapegoat of a robbery took place in the branch on

30.6.2003 in which a huge sum of Rs. 12,69,554.20 paise

was robbed by the robbers. It is submitted that the

workman had worked even after 30.6.2003 till the year 2006

which is also evident from the court summons dated

14.5.2004 and 14.2.2006 filed with the statement of claim.

Even the Management/Respondent also issued a certificate

dated 30.9.2003 confirming working of the workman with it

till 30.9.2003 original certificate is filed with this reply. In

view of the facts stated above and in the statement of

claim alongwith the documentary proof , the termination

of the workman from the services is illegal , unlawful,

unjustified and against the labour laws.

2.

That the contents of para No.2 of the objections are

totally false, frivolous, misconceived and hence denied in

toto. It is absolutely denied that provision of Section 25 F

of the Act were and are inapplicable. It is further specifically

wrong and denied that at the end of the 85th day the

employment of the claimant came to an end as per the

terms and conditions of the letter dated 28.3.2003. It is

reiterated that the complainant was wrongly terminated

from the services and despite his termination the

management used to take duties from him till the year 2006

as clarified above in the preceding para as well as in the

statement of claim.

Rejoinder to reply on merits.

1.

That the contents of para No.1 of the reply need no

reply being matter of record and admitted by the

respondent.

2.

That the contents of para No. 2 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

emphatically denied that the appointment was for 85 days

and it came to end on the expiry of the same on 23.6.2003

or that requirement of any kind of notice did not exist. It is

submitted that the workman was illegally and unlawfully

terminated from the service and even after his termination

the management used to take work from the workman as is

evident from the facts narrated in the claim statement and

in the preceding para.

3.

That the contents of para No. 3 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct.

4.

That the contents of para No. 4 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the claim statement are reiterated as correct. It is

emphatically denied that services of the workman came to

end w.e.f 23.6.2003 and he did not attend the office

thereafter. It is reiterated that workman had been working

with the Management even after 30.6.2003 which is also

evident from the certificate dated 30.9.2003 issued by the

respondent as well as from the court summons narrated in

the claim statement.

5.

That the contents of para No. 5 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

emphatically denied that the appointment was for 85 days

only as alleged or otherwise . It is reiterated that the

workman was made scapegoat of the robbery as he did

not recognize the culprit of the robbery took place in the

branch on 30.6.2003. It is also matter of record that the

management used to avail services of the workman till

2006 as is evident from the letter dated 30.9.2003 and the

court summons placed on the record of this Hon’ble Court.

6.

That the contents of para No. 6 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the claim statement are correct. It is reiterated that the

workman has become victim at the hands of the respondent

management as he could not recognize and /or identify

the robbers by face. It is reiterated that the management/

respondent tried their level best to use the workman as

tool to identify the robbers despite the fact that the

workman never seen the robbers by face. A bare perusal

of the statement of Ld. PP for the State also suggests this

fact during cross-examination of the workman in criminal

case FIR No. 124/03, which is reproduced below, for the

kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court:-

“ At this stage learned PP for the State request for

declaring the witness hostile as the witness is

suppressing the truth).”

Thus, the workman is the victim at the hands of the

respondent/management.

7.

That the contents of para No. 7 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is denied

that the workman was purely on temporary basis. It is

submitted that even after illegal termination of the workman

from the services the management had been taking the

services of the workman till 2006 as is evident from the

documents placed before this Hon’ble Court.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3975

8-9.

That the contents of para No. 8 and 9 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that appointment of workman was

temporary in nature for 85 days . It is totally false and that

the management never re-employed him. In this connection

the certificate dated 30.9.2003 filed with this reply as well

as court summons already placed on record are suffice to

show that the management had been availing services of

the workman till 2006.

10.

That the contents of para No. 10 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. However, it

is not denied that on the day of incident of robbery i.e.

30.6.2003 the claimant was present in the office. However,

it is specifically denied that he was not on the roll of

Corporation on that day as alleged. Extract of deposition

as narrated in the earlier para itself shows that the officials

of the respondent management adamant to pressurize the

workman to identify the culprits whom the workman never

seen by face.

11.

That the contents of para No. 11 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that claimant was appointed as

temporary peon muchless as alleged or otherwise and /or

that he signed undertaking dated 31.3.2003 in the manner

as alleged.

12.

That the contents of para No. 12 of the reply are

wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

reiterated that the workman was appointed through the

process of Employment Exchange on permanent post and

the corporation availed his services from 28.3.2003 till 2006

as is evident from the documents filed on records which is

more than the required 240 days of continuous services

as such the claim of the claimant is very much maintainable

under the provisions of law. All the other allegations in

the para under reply except matter of record are wrong and

denied.

13-19. That the contents of para No. 13 to 19 of the reply

are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding

para of the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that he was appointed as temporary

peon or that his services automatically terminated w.e.f

23.6.2003. It is specifically denied that he was not required

to be served with a notice or salary in lieu of the notice

period. It is denied that the workman was not reemployed.

As a matter of fact, the management availed services of

the workman till 2006 as is evident from the certificate of

30.9.2003 and of the court summons as placed on record

and worked more than 240 days in a year as per law and as

such the management is liable for the action under the law.

My Ld predecessors has not framed any issue but proceed

to adjudicate the present reference on the basis of schedule

wherein questions of determination were as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Bhiwani in

terminating the services of Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh.

Chet Ram Peon w.e.f 30.6.2003 is just and legal? If

not to what relief the workman is entitled to?

Workman in support of his case filed affidavit on 8/1/13.

Wherein he stated as follows:-

1.

That I state that I am the claimant in the above noted

matter and am fully conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case; hence I am competent to swear

the present affidavit. I have file the claim petition which

bears my signature as point A and B on claim petition and

point C and D on affidavit.

2.

That the present claim petition is being filed before

this Hon’ble Court as per the directions of the Hon’ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh vide

order dated 9.10.2006 in CWP No. 9328/2010. The certified

copy of the order is Ex.WW-1/1.

3.

I say that I was appointed as peon on permanent

basis by the management w.e.f 28.3.2003 through the

process of Employment Exchange . I have work honestly,

diligently and sincerely, upto the entire satisfaction of the

management.

4.

I say that the management without any prior

intimation or notice, all of a sudden dismiss me from the

service w.e.f. 30.6.2003. I had drawn my last salary of

Rs. 4150/- P.M.

5.

I say that even after my illegal termination, the

management used to take work from me and I had worked

on the post of peon even after my illegal termination. The

management did not pay the salary/wages/benefits as per

the rules and regulations of the Labour Laws. I say that

the summons issued by the Hon’ble Court dated 15.5.2004

and 14.2.2006 of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Addl. Sessions

Judge-Cum- First Track Court, Bhiwani in FIR case No.

124 as witness for the dated 28.5.2004 and 23.3.2006 are

the evident that I was working in my office with the

management and for the service of the summons to me in

the said FIR were send on the said address. I say that in

fact, this summons were issued in connection with the

robbery was committed on 30.6.2003 at the branch office

of the management and I was one of the witness of that

robbery. A huge sum of Rs. 12, 69,545.20 paise was robered

by the robbers. The branch manager including other senior

officers of the management was also witness of the said

robbery but they expressed their inability to become a

witness and forced me to be a witness. Copy of summons

dated 28.5.2004 and 23.2.2006 issued by Sandeep Kumar

Garg, ADJ, is Ex. WW-1/2 and Ex. WW-1/3.

3976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6.

I say that I was insisted from the management to

give evidence against the culprits and identified the

robbers despite the fact that the senior officers including

manager also present in the branch at the time of robbery.

I had been met scapegoat to identify the robbers despite

the fact that I did not see the face of the robbers. I further

states that a bare perusal of the order dated 4.12.2004 in

case FIR No. 124 dated 30.6.2003 passed by Sh.Sandeep

Kumar , ASJ , Bhiwani clearly reflect that I was met as star

witness to the said crime/robbery.

7.

I say that the Branch Manager of the Management

apart of that incident the branch manager was not happy

with my appointment because my appointment was through

employment exchange. The branch manager wanted to

get his own man/relatives to be employed with the

management . With this sole illegal and unlawful end ,

Branch Manager of the organization hatched conspiracy

with me and dismiss me from the service w.e.f 30.6.2003

without any rhyme and reason or without serving any

prior notice or pay in lieu thereof, which is totally against

the established labour law. However, I continued with my

job till the year 2006 without break-up and without salary

and other benefits. It is further clarify that the management

issued the certificate to me which confirming my working

with the management till 30.9.2003. Original copy of

certificate issued by LIC on its letter head dated 30.9.2003

is Ex. WW-1/4

8.

I say that the act of the management of dismissing /

terminating me from the service in the result of vindictive

attitude of the officials of the management at the Bhiwani

Branch.

9.

I say that feeling aggrieved by the action of the

management I got issued a legal demand notice dated

30.6.2005 through Sh. Amar Lal, Advocate to the

management whereby the management was called upon

to reinstate to me in the service with full back wages and

all consequential benefits. However, despite the service

of this notice, the management did not act in accordance

with act of labour Act and refused to reinstate me on service.

Copy of the notice is mark as Mark-A.

10.

I say that I have filed a claim petition before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central , Faridabad where

reconciliation proceedings were conducted and the same

was failed. The Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted

failure report to the Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India

vide No. 8 (26) 2005 ALF dated 31.1.2006 mentioned my

wrong address.

11.

I say that the Ministry of Labour Govt. of India

thereafter referred the reference for adjudication to this

Hon’ble Court to the following effect:

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Bhiwani in

terminating the services of Sh. Satish kumar S/o

Sh. Chet Ram Peon w.e.f 30.6.2003 is just and legal?

If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

12.

I say that my termination/dismissal from the service

is totally illegal, unjust and malafide. I have been victimized

for no fault, my termination without giving any reason is

against the service rules and regulation and principle of

labour law. I was continued with my job without salary. I

have not given any payment or prior notice before

termination. I have been meted with hostile discrimination

as mentioned above. I have been working under the direct

control and supervision of the management. I have been

not offered any compensation for my illegal termination.

13.

I say that my impugned termination is against the

principle of natural justice and labour law established

under the statute which is not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

14.

I say that right from the day of my illegal and

unlawful termination/dismissal from the service, I am

unemployed and despite my best efforts, I could not get

any employment and also because of the fact that the

management kept on alluring me that he could be employed

me in case I identify the robbers in FIR case No. 124 dated

30.6.2003.

15.

I say that I am liable to be reinstate in the service

with full back wages since the day of my termination/

dismissal dated 30.6.2003 with all consequential benefits.

16.

I say that I am also entitle to reimburse with the cost

of this litigation from the management.

17.

I say that my claim petition is correct and the same

may kindly be allowed as prayed in claim petition before

this Hon’ble Court.

He tendered his affidavit on 10.6.2013.

He was cross-examined same day by Ld. A/R for the

management .

His examination-in-chief and cross-examination is as

follows:-

I tender my affidavit as evidence, which is Ex.

WW1/A. Alongwith this Affidavit , I rely on order dated

9.10.2006 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana ,

summons dated 28.5.2004 and 23.2.2006 issued by Sh.

Sandip Garg , ADJ, Bhiwani, certificate dated 30.9.2003

issued by the management , notice dated 30.6.2005 and

order dated 4.12.2004 passed by ADJ Bhiwani, Haryana ,

which documents are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/6 . These

documents may be read in support of my affidavit.

XXXX by Sh. Ashish Verma, A/R for the management.

I was appointed by the management when my name

was sponsored by employment exchange. I was

interviewed by the management on 28.3.2003. I am

matriculate. I know English a little bit. It is correct that I

had mentioned in my claim statement that I was appointed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3977

by the management on 28.3.2003. I was made aware that

my appointment was for 85 days only. Undertaking Ex.

WW1/M1 bears my signature at Point A. It is correct that

I submitted my joining report on 31.3.2003. It is also correct

that my term of appointment was upto 23.6.2003. I was

called in the office by the management on 30.6.2003 to

offer me a permanent job. No appointment letter was given

to me on 30.6.2003. Again said, I was engaged as a daily

wager by the branch manager . I am not in possession of

any document which may show that I was engaged as a

daily wager since 30.6.2003. It is not mentioned in my claim

statement that I was called by the management on 30.6.2003

to offer me a permanent job. It is also mentioned in my

claim statement that I was engaged as a daily wager with

effect from 30.6.2003.

A theft had taken place in the branch of the

management on 30.6.2003. I was summoned by the court

in respect of that theft , as a witness. It is incorrect that my

demand notice is based on false facts. It is further incorrect

that my claim is also based on false facts. It is incorrect

that I am not entitled to relief of reinstatement in service.

I am unemployed since June, 2006. I had not made

effort to gain employment thereafter. I was employed by

the management from June, 2003 to June 2006. It is incorrect

that I was not engaged by the management after June,

2003.

There after Sh. Neeraj Kumar Ld A/R for the claimant

closes evidence of the claimant .

Sh. Ashish Verma Ld. A/R for the management filed

affidavit of management witness Sh. R.S.Poonia as

evidence. Copy of which supplied to Ld.A/R Sh. Neeraj

Kumar.

Case adjourned to 23.8.2013 for cross-examination of

Sh. R.S. Poonia and other evidence of the management on

23.8.2013.

MW1 Sh. R.S Poonia was examined and cross-examined.

His examination and cross-examination is as follows:-

I tender my evidence filed on 10.6.2013. I point X

and Y are mine. Documents filed be are exhibit are A1, A2,

A3 and B.

I have verified the affidavit on 6.6.2013. I have

verified the same at karnal. The same was attested by notary

karnal. I don’t know who filed WS for the management i.e.

LIC . As a capacity of Chief Manager then Branch Manager

of Bhiwani Branch came before this Hon’ble Court for the

evidence . I cannot submit authorization letter. Question.

Was objected by Ld. A/R’s evaluation of aforesaid answer

shall be appreciate at the time of judgment. No would

resolution had been passed through which I have been

directed to produce Ld. A/R’s for management have

objected. I came in evidence sumoto. I cannot read copy

of document exhibit in toto but date of joining can be read.

I have no personal knowledge in case of Satish Kumar . It

is correct that Mr. Satish Kumar was appointed on 28.3.2003

. He was temporarily for 85 days. An appointment letter

was issued to him. I have not filed any documents

regarding voluntarily whatever the documents related to

the appointment is within the knowledge of legal

department. I have no idea regarding the monthly salary

of the claimant but it may be about 4150/- per month. We

have not issued any notice regarding the termination. It is

wrong to suggest that useless substitute previous workers

comes to work.

I have not brought the original of Ex MW1/B . Or

termination nothing is to be paid to the workman. It is

correct that on 30.6.2003 a robbery was committed by some

robbers at Bhiwani Branch. Such occurrence committed

after my transfer. I can’t say whether FIR was logged or

not. I don’t know FIR bearing no. 124/30/6/2003 was

registered or not. It is wrong to say that Mr. Satish kumar

was forced to identify the culprits of robbery as evidence

before ID etc. Voluntary stated I am not aware of the facts

whether force was applied on Mr . Satish Kumar. It is wrong

to say that they then Branch Manager Bhiwani wants to

appoint own candidate in place of workman so he was

terminated. I don’t know whether the claimant continue to

work after termination upto 2006. I cannot tell whether

summon to witnesses dated 14.2.2006 were received where

he was working at the time. It is wrong to suggest that the

workman has been victimize for no fault of his further it is

wrong to suggest that the workman was illegally terminated

without giving any reason and against the service rule

and regulation and principle of labour laws. It is wrong to

suggest that the job he was working continued till year

2006 from the date of his appointment . It is wrong to

suggest that the workman was met with hostiled

discrimination and was thrown out of job illegally. It is

correct that the workman was under the direct control of

supervision of the management. It is wrong to suggest

that workman is entitled for full backwages. It is wrong to

suggest that I don’t have any personal knowledge of the

case. It is wrong to say that deposing false statement.

Management filed affidavit of Ms. Nandita & Sh.

L.S.Sangwan which were introduced on record. Copy of

affidavit were supplied to Ld. A/R for the workman and

fixed 10.10.2013 for examination and cross-examination

of aforesaid MWs.

On 10.10.13 examination and cross-examination of MW2

Miss Nandita and MW3 Mrs. L.S Sangwan were recorded.

MW2 Ms. Nandita, examination and cross-examination

is as follows:-

I tender my affidavit alongwith documents marked

as Exhibit MW3/A, Exh. MW3/B Exh. MW3/C , MW3/D.

Signature at point X and Y are mine.

3978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I joined my job on 31 /3/1997 as AAO in LIC of India

and my training was held at Bhopal . I have joined Delhi

Division I, legal department in June , 2012 as manager

(legal) from June, 2012. I do not know regarding the case

record of the workman. I do not know when Mr. G.P. Pandey

was duly authorized to sign the reply. As per the case

record workman only worked for 85 days . On that basis I

stated so in the affidavit June, 2003 is the date of the

termination of the workman . No termination was required

as he was appointed for a fix period. I have not much

knowledge of robbery when it was committed in branch

office of Bhiwani detail are not in my knowledge. I do not

know whether Satish was witness or not. It is wrong to

suggest that workman was worked upto 2006 without any

break. It is also wrong to suggest that no payment was

paid to him. It is wrong to suggest that the workman made

scapegoat with regard to the robbery as he was compelled

to identify the culprits of the branch office. It is wrong to

suggest that the workman has been illegally terminated

without giving any reason and against the service rules

and regulation. It is wrong to suggest that I have no

personal knowledge of the present case. Further it is wrong

to suggest that I filed wrong affidavit. It is further wrong

to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

MW3 Sh. L.S. Sangwan, examination and cross-

examination is as follows :—

The Exh. No 2/A1 and 2/1 , 1/B , 2/A , 2/B , 2/C , 2/D,

2/E are Exhibits. The signature at point X and Y are mine

(more of the exhibited documents is objected by the

counsel of the workman.)

XXXX by Sh. Neeraj Kumar

I have singed my affidavit after going through the

contents of the same. I have not mentioned in my affidavit

that when I got retired from my Job. Voluntarily it does not

concern with the present case. Again volunteered I got

retired. On 30.6.2006. I have got the personal knowledge

of the present case. I have not authorized by the LIC to

deposed before this Hon’ble Court today. I have not

brought any authorization letter from the concerned

department to produce it before this Hon’ble Court today.

Volunteered I got retired from my job from Bhiwani Branch

office. I have not mentioned that I was posted at Bhiwani

branch from 14.5.2003 to 30.6.2006. till my retirement.

Voluntarily said that exact working period of my at Bhiwani

branch from 27.5.2003 to 30.6.2006. It is wrong to suggest

that I signed my affidavit without going through the

contests of the same. It is wrong to suggest that I have no

personal knowledge of the present case. I cannot say the

exact date of the appointment of the workman but he was

appointed prior to my joining at Bhiwani Branch. It is

correct that there has been no disciplinary action was taken

against the workman nor any complaint mit was against

him during his service period at any point of time

volunteered because he was worked with the office on

27.5.2003 to 23.6.2003 till the period I was posted there. A

robbery was committee in the branch office in the year

30.6.2003. I was branch manager at the time of the robbery.

The Fir was also registered . Mr. Satish was one if the

witness of this case of the robbery. It is wrong to suggest

that management compelled Satish to identify the culprits

of the robbery. It is wrong to suggest that on his refusal

management was annoyed with Satish. It is incorrect to

suggest that I want Satish had spelled and in his place I

want to appoint my own people.

Question :—The Management used to take service of the

workman even after his termination ?

Ans. No.

It is wrong to suggest the management used to take the

services of Satish even after his termination till year 2006.

Observation

It is correct that on summon on Satish his address is

written as follows:-

“At present peon (Temporary ) Life Insurance

Corporation BWN”

On 14.2.2006 I was not in charge branch manager

but I was manager (sales) It is correct that Satish Kumar

was paid upto 23.6.2003. It is wrong to suggest that

workman worked upto year 2006 without any wages and

other benefits but no payment was made to him. I have

not received any legal notice by the workman dated

30.8.2005 through his lawyer as I was not in charge during

that period as a Branch Manager. No termination letter

was issued by me to Satish. At the time of appointment his

tanner was fixed. No notice was required. He was appointed

as per procedure. It is wrong to suggest that the workman

has mit scapegoat with regard to the robbery which taken

place on 30.6.2003. It is wrong to suggest that the workman

has been victimized and he is terminated from his service

without giving any reason against the service rules and

regularization and Practice Labour Law .It is wrong to

suggest that I have filed wrong affidavit and I have

deposing falsely.

Thereafter management closed its evidence then 18.11.2013

was fixed for argument.

Ld.A/R for the parties orally argued.

They also filed Written Arguments.

Written Argument of workman as follows:-

(a)

That the Workman was appointed as Peon, on

permanent basis, by the management w.e.f 28.3.2003,

through the process of employment exchange and

the workman worked honestly, diligently, sincerely

up to the entire satisfaction of the management.

However, the management without any prior notice

or intimation, all of a sudden dismissed the workman

from the services with effect from 30.6.2003. The

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3979

workman’s last drawn salary was Rs. 4150/- per

month. However, the workman was dismissed from

the service, but the management used to take the

work from the workman but he was neither paid the

wages and benefits as per the rules and labour laws

under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(b)

That it is respectfully submitted that the workman

had worked with the management without any break

up. In fact, the branch of the management was not

happy with the appointment of the workman whose

appointment was made through the process of

employment exchange and that is why the said

branch manager of the Management started

harassing and indiscriminating the workman without

any rhyme and reason right from the day of

appointment of the workman in the said branch, with

sole motive to get his own man/relative employed

with the corporation /management. With this sole

illegal and unlawful aim in his mind, the branch

manager of the corporation /management hatched

conspiracy with the workman and dismissed the

workman from the permanent service of the workman

rhyme and reason and that too without serving any

prior notice or pay in lieu thereof, which is totally

against the established labour law. However, the

workman continued with his job till the year 2006.

(c)

That it is also pertinent to mention herein that on

30.6.2003, a robbery was committed by some robbers

at the Branch office of the management and this

gave opportunity to the branch manager to dismiss

the workman from the service. In the said robbery, a

huge sum of Rs. 12.69,554.20 paise was robbed by

the robbers. Branch manager and other senior

officials of the management made workman as one

of the witness of the said robbery despite the fact

that the workman did not see by face any robbers/

culprits involved in the said robbery and when the

workman expressed his inability to become a witness

in the said robbery case, the branch manager of the

management , who was looking for such an

opportunity , dismissed the workman from the

service all of a sudden , even without serving any

prior notice or payment in lieu of the notice period.

(d)

That it is further pertinent to mention here that the

management persistently insisted the workman to

give evidence against the culprits in identifying the

robbers, despite the fact that the senior officials who

were also present in the branch at the time of robbery

must had seen the robbers/accused did not come

forward in favour of the management of identify the

robbers/culprits /accused and on the contrary the

workman had been made scapegoat to identify the

robbers despite the fact that the workman did not

see any of the robbers by face and was thus unable

to identify them.

(e)

That it is also pertinent to mention here that the

senior officials , more particularly branch manager

of the management used to take work from the

workman by alluring and inducing that if the workman

would give evidence against the accused/robbers

in their identification, the management would re-

employ the workman on the permanent post.

(f)

Working of the workman with the management is

also duly confirmed and established by the summons

dated 15.5.2004 and 14.2.2006 issued to the workman

by the court of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Addl.

Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Bhiwani in

FIR case NO. 124/2003 for workman’s evidence on

28.5.2004 and 23.3.2006 respectively served upon

the workmen at the branch office address. Thus, it is

crystal clear that the workman rendered his services

beyond the period of 140 days continuously but the

management aid not pay him the salary and wages

and other benefits as rules and labour laws.

(g)

The copy of legal notice of the workman, and service

of summons dated 14.5.2004 and 14.2.2006 upon the

workmen substantiate the claim of the workman by

reflecting that the workman had been continuously

working with the management till the year 2006 but

the management did not pay the workman his wages,

benefits as per the service rules and principles of

labour laws the same was admitted by the

management witness in their cross-examination.

(h)

It is also pertinent to mention here that incident of

robbery had taken place in the presence of several

officials, senior and juniors, but despite seeing the

robbers by face by the said officials , none of them

came forward to identify the robbers and on the

contrary, all the above said officials pressurized the

workman for identification of the robbers /accused

although the workman had never seen the robbers/

accused by face. A bare perusal of the order dated

04.12.2004 in case FIR No. 124 dated 30.6.2003 clearly

illustrated that the workman was made as star

witness to the said crime/robber.

(i)

That the workman got issued a legal demand notice

dated 30.6.2005 through Sh. Amar Lal, Advocate , to

the management , whereby the management was

called upon to reinstate the workman in the service

with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

However, despite service of the said notice, the

management did not act in accordance with the

labour laws rather refused to reinstate the workman

on service.

(j)

The workman filed his claim before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central) , Faridabad where

reconciliation proceedings were failed.

(k)

That ministry of Labour , Govt. of India thereafter,

referred the reference for adjudication to this Hon’ble

Court.

3980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(l)

That the aforesaid termination/dismissal of the

workman from the services is totally illegal, unjust

and malafide for the amongst following reasons:-

(i)

That the workman has been victimized for no

fault of his and he was illegally terminated

without giving any reason and against the

service rules and regulations and principle of

labour laws.

(ii)

That the job against which he was working is

still continuing and was of permanent and

regular nature.

(iii)

That no notice was given nor payment in lieu

of the notice period was offered of paid to the

workman at the time of termination of the

service .

(iv)

That the workman was meted with hostile

discrimination.

(v)

That the workman had been working under

the direct control and supervision of the

management.

(vi)

That the management has also taken fresh

hands to the employment after terminating the

services of the workman.

(vii)

That the workman has not committed any

misconduct whatsoever.

(viii) That no service compensation was either

offered of paid to the workman at the time of

his illegal termination.

(ix)

That the impugned termination of the workman

from the service is against the principle of

natural justice and labour law established

under the statute.

(x)

That the management has filed their reply

which failed to disclose any valid reason of

the termination of the workman as much as

only stated that the workman was appointed

for a fixed period w.e.f 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003.

However, the management not given any

proper reason as to why they used to take the

services of the workman even after his

termination. The management even failed to

cross-examination of workman on this

particular point and only asked regarding the

undertaking which bears the signature of the

workman, however, not asked any question

regarding the contents of the undertaking. It

is humbly submitted that the workman was

misleaded and forced to sign the undertaking

by the management. Even otherwise the

management has failed to lead any proper

evidence to substantiate their defence. The

witnesses examined by the management

clearly deposed that they have no personal

knowledge regarding the case. The witness

Sh. L.S. Sagwan on dt. 10.10.2013 deposed

clearly that, “ it is correct that on summon on

Satish his address is written as follow:- at

present peon (temporary life insurance

corporation BWN).” The witness was also not

authorized by the management and he deposed

himself, “I have not authorized by the LIC to

deposed before this Hon’ble Court today I

have not brought any authorization letter from

the concerned department to produce it before

this Hon’bel Court today”. Even in his affidavit

of Chief Examination he not mentioned that

he was posted in Bhiwani Branch from

14.5.2005 to 30.6.2006. MW 3 Ms. Nandita was

also examined by the management on

10.10.2013, who herself deposed in cross-

examination that “I do not know regarding the

case record of the workman. She further

deposed I do not when Mr. C.P. Pandey was

duly authorized to sign the reply. “MW1 Mr.

R.S. Poonia was also examined by the

management who also deposed during the

cross-examination that, “ I have no personal

knowledge in case of Satish Kumar”.

Moreover, the documents, filed by the

management in their support are also

photocopies and dim which are not legible

and not even certified and marked/ exhibit.

The management failed to point out their

defence for want of evidence and relevant

documents.

(m)

It is therefore most respectfully submitted that the

dismissal of workman from the service without

serving any notice period is absolutely against the

labour laws, illegal , unlawful and is against the

principle of natural justice and is not sustainable in

the eyes of law and that is why the central

government after considering all the above aspects

of the matter made the above reference for

adjudication by this Hon’ble Court. The workman is

unemployed and despite his best efforts, he could

not get any employment. That the workman is liable

to be reinstated in the service with full back wages

since the day of his termination/dismissal i.e.

30.6.2003 till his reinstatement with all consequential

benefits. That the workman has also incurred

substantial expenses on account of litigation

charges and the workman is also entitled to the costs

of the litigation from the management.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF

MANAGEMENT /LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

OF INDIA.

The workman has stated in the claim petition in

evidence filed by an affidavit that he was appointed by

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3981

the management on 28.3.2003 through the process of

employment exchange and was suddenly terminated on

30.6.2003. It is not the case of the workman that he had

been appointed and was continuously working with the

management for the last one year previous to his

appointment/alleged retrenchment on 30.6.2003. The claim

petition of the workman for reinstatement and back wages

is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. No

document was filed to show continuous service prior to

date of alleged retrenchment and no witness examined.

WORKMAN IS GUILTY OF SUGGESTION FALSE AS

DOCUMENT 30.9.2003 IS AN ATTEMPT TO MISIFAD

THIS HON’BLE TRINUNAL AND IS FALSE AND

FABRICATED

The workman has filed an original documents dated

30.9.2003 along with his rejoinder and marked the said

documents as Exh. WW-1/4 to prove that the management

was continuously taking work from him till 30.6.2003 Exh.

WW-1/4 is of one Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad

and not of the workman . In the cross examination the

workman has specifically stated that he was not in

possession of any document which may show that he was

engaged as a daily wager with effect from 30.6.2003. No

document was filed to show continuous service and no

witness examined.

CASE OF NO EVIDENCE /FALSE EVIDENCE

The burden of proof was always on the workman to

prove his claim. The workman has failed to produce any

document to prove terms of contract and period of

employment. The muster role produced by the

management. , Exhibit MW2/B proves that the workman

worked from 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003 in cross-examination

the workman has admitted that he was made aware of the

terms and conditions of his employment which was for a

period of 85 days only. Undertaking Ex. WW1/M1 has

been admitted by the workman and signatures thereon

identified as his. It was further admitted that the term of

appointment of the workman was upto 23.6.2003 only. The

workman has filed a false document Exh. WW-1/4 and

falsely stated that he was employed on a permanent basis

till 23.6.2003 and then till 2006. Exh. WW -1/4 has been

denied. Allegation of continuous/permanent job is wholly

unsubstantiated.

ALLEGATION OF PRESURE BY MANAGEMENT TO

BECOME WITNESS FALSE AND FABRICATED

The workman was the person from whom money

bag was snatched and was the prime witness of the

robbery committed on 30.6.2003. MW2, Sh. L.S Sangwan

was PW 4 in the criminal case and had stated that the

workman was not an employee of the management but

was there to collect his salary only. MW2 has denied

pressure on the workman for becoming a witness.

EMPLOYMENT OF WORKMAN WAS FOR FIXED

PERIOD OF 85 DAYS AND NO REQUIREMENT OF

SECTION 25 F EXISTED

The letter dated 30.9.2003 filed as WW-1/4 by the

workman with his evidence has been denied as a false

forged and fabricated document by MW2 , Sh. LS Sangwan

in his evidence. It has been stated and reiterated by all

three management witnesses and proved that the claimant

was employed with effect from 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003 vide

appointment letter dated 28.3.2003 Exh. 2/A with a salary

of Rs. 4150 per month on a purely contractual basis which

was temporary in nature for 85 days as peon. At the end of

the 85th day the employment of the claimant came to an

end as per the terms and conditions of the letter dated

28.3.2003 and undertaking is WW1/M1 , MW2, Sh. LS

Sangwan has stated in his deposition and Exh. MW2/D,

that the workman was not an employee of the management

but was present at the branch office only to collect his

salary. MW2 has denied taking work from the workman

after 23.6.2003. Section 25F was inapplicable. In cross-

examination the workman had admitted that he was

employed from 31.3.2003 to 23.6.2003 as a daily wager. In

cross, the workman has denied any further extension

denied Exh. WW-1/4. The workman was paid salary for

the period he had worked in the Bhiwani branch.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

of Ld. A/R’s for the parties . I perused the pleadings of

claim statement, written statement, and rejoinder and

evidence of the parties , settled law of Hon’ble Supreme

Court as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court including

relevant provision of law including case law. Perusal of

pleadings of evidence of claimant/workman shows that

he was not discharged on 23.3.2003 by management but

he was in service of management on 30.6.2003 when

robbery took place in the branch office of LIC , Bhiwani

and robbers snatched the beg from the workman/claimant

Sh. Satish Kumar containing cash of Rs. 12,69,554.20. Had

workman not been in the service in management such bag

containing cash must have not been in the possession of

workman as workman of the management.

Moreover workman was summoned as witness by

trial court through which robbery case was tried the

workman was examined there is prosecution witness where

he declared hostile . Due to which case of culprits has

been decided in their favour and they were acquitted.

Allegation of workman/claimant are that workman /claimant

was terminated by management after incident of robbery

and he was compelled to identify the culprit of robbery.

Management gave allurement in case he identifies the

culprit of robbery. Workman/Claimant further alleges that

management took services of workman upto 14.2.2006

and paid upto nothing as salary etc. and terminated him

on 14.2.2006.

Thus, Management adopted unlawful labour

practice in the instant case. So, workman claimed his

3982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reinstatement, full back wages and all consequential

benefit alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. etc.

Although perusal of pleadings and evidence of

management on record is that workman was appointed for

85 days only so his services already expired on 23.6.2003.

So no notice etc u/s 25F I.D Act necessary but to

appreciate the evidence on record. This fact cannot be

brushed aside as a trivial fact that on the date of robbery

30.6.2003 workman/claimant having cash bag of

management of L.I.C from whose possession robbers

snatched the bag.

Moreover workman/claimant was mentioned as star

witness of the robbery in the robbery case. He was shown

to be in service of management. He was summoned by

court concerned from his office address and he was

examined in court in which his official address was

mentioned. These facts cumulatively sufficient to infer

that workman /claimant was in service of management

and management was not paying him salary etc. since

24.6.2003 onward.

Management with an ulterior motive terminated the

services of workman /claimant. In these circumstances I

am of considered view that management of LIC adopted

unfair labour practice in the instant case and took services

of workman /claimant without any payment to him but at

the same time I am of considered view that workman was a

daily wager.

I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court

on the point of reinstatement and grant of back wages

which shows that reinstatement is not a necessary

consequence wherever termination is held illegal.

Depending upon the facts of each case a suitable

compensation can be awarded. In Assistant Engineer,

Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr Vs. Gitam Singh,

(2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and

25% back wages was not proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and the compensation of

Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends

of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004,

Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award of

reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments,

Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal

or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute

Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society

Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement,

it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not

automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus.

Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only)

by way of damages as compensation to the workman/

claimant by Management after expiry of period of limitation

of available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends

of Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman

and against Management.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 03/04/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1515-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj U;w bafM;k

bU'kksjsUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 16@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

9@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@23@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of New India Assurance Company Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/5/2014.

[No.L-17012/23/2006-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 2007

Between

Sri Ram Bhajan Kushwaha,

son of late Sri Sunder Lal Kushwaha,

Resident of EWS 884 Barra -2,

Kanpur.

And

The Assistant General Manager,

NICL, New India Assurance Company limited,

Regional Office, Green House, 15/60,

Civil lines, Kanpur.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3983

AWARD

1.

Central Government MoL New Delhi, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication vide notification

No. L-17012/23/2006-IR(M) dated 12.03.2007.

2.

Whether the action of the management of New India

Assurance Company Limited in terminating the services

of Sri Ram Bhajan Kushwaha (workman) w. e. f. 5.5.2000 is

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

entitled?

3.

Brief facts are that it has been alleged by the

workman that he was engaged by the opposite party as a

IV class employee on 03.05.74. Regional office of the

opposite party like training center, stationery department,

etc., Kanpur, were also taking work from him as a electrician

and plumber and he was known as an electrician. There

are certain vouchers on which the salary has been paid

making an endorsement as salary, whereas on other

vouchers they were making an endorsement i.e. labour for

electrical works with the intention to defeat the claim of

the claimant. His attendance was also marked on a separate

sheet by the management. The opposite party was treating

him as a employee so they made the disbursement of ex-

gratia (bonus) for the year 1984-85 on the basis of earned

wages vide voucher no. 8261. This ex-gratia bonus was

stopped in the year 1988 therefore he filed a writ petition

17620/98, before the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad

whereby the Hon’ble Court directed to make the payment

accordingly.

4.

The work which was being taken from him since

1974 was of regular nature but when he made a request for

the regularization but the opposite by adopting unfair

means regularized the services of some juniors viz. Sri

Madan Gopal and others as mentioned in Para 7 of the

claim petition. The employer became annoyed against the

workman by order dated 18.06.99 passed in Civil Misc.

Writ Petition No. 25343 of 99. The management did not

make the payment of full salary for the month March 2000

and also did not make the payment for the Month of April

2000, upon which he raised an objection before the

management. Thereupon the management did not make

the payment for April 2000 and his services were orally

terminated since 5/5/2000. The oral termination is being

assailed by the workman on the ground that the

management did not comply with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inasmuch as he was neither

offered any notice, notice pay or retrenchment

compensation which was mandatory on the part of the

management because the workman has rendered much

more than 240 days of continuous service preceding 12

months from the date of his termination, as such it is a

illegal retrenchment which is liable to be quashed and the

workman is entitled for his reinstatement with full back

wages, seniority and all consequential benefits.

5.

Opposite party has filed the written statement. They

have not denied his engagement since 1974 but stated

that he was engaged as a contractor on contractual basis

for the maintenance of electrical and plumbering work in

the New India Assurance Com. Limited Regional Office,

Kanpur initially at the rate Rs.1500 per month, which was

enhanced to Rs. 3000 per month w.e.f.1.1.96. He was never

appointed or employed as electrician or as plumber in the

office of the opposite party. He was never in the service or

on pay roll of the opposite party. The work was being

taken was not of permanent nature. He has not worked on

full time basis. There is no regular or sanctioned post of

plumber. He was never terminated. It is known that he was

also working in other places. The claim is highly belated

and legally not maintainable. In such circumstances

question of complying with the provisions of I.D. Act,

1947, does not arise.

6.

Lastly it is stated by the management that the claim

of the workman is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

7.

Rejoinder has also been filed by the workman but

nothing new has been stated therein.

8.

Claimant has filed several documents. He has filed 5

documents vide list paper no.14/3. He has also filed18

documents vide list 9/1. The documents are paper no. 9/2

to 9/18.

9.

The opposite party did not file any documents.

10.

Both the parties adduced oral evidence. Claimant

adduced himself as W.W.1 Ram Bhajan Kushwaha.

Opposite party has adduced M.W.1 Sri Rajender Kapoor

who is Assistant Manager.

11.

I have heard the documents at length and perused

the whole record.

12.

The short question in this case to be decided is

whether the claimant was engaged by the opposite party

as a contractor on contractual basis or his services were

being engaged or taken as a workman since 1974 till

04.05.05.

13.

It is a fact that the work was being taken from the

workman as electrician and plumber for the maintenance

of the Regional Office of the opposite party.

14.

The claimant has stated on oath that his wages were

paid as salary and not as contractual payment. The claimant

has filed several papers like 6/4-6. The genuineness of

paper no. 6/4-6 has been clearly admitted by the opposite

party in the court. I have examined these papers. Paper no.

6/4 is a payment voucher of the year 1991. It clearly shows

that there is an endorsement of payment as salary. Not

only that he was paid his salary but was also paid ex-

gratia bonus for the years 1984-86 on the basis of his

earned wages. This amount is Rs. 2137.50 paisa and the

relevant papers are 6/5-6/6 which is admitted by the

opposite party. He specifically stated that his attendance

3984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was marked on a separate copy but when the payments

were made through vouchers it was written at the vouchers

that the payment is being made to the workman for the

whole month. These papers are 6/7-9, clearly admitted by

the opposite party. The original of which has also been

summoned by the workman but the opposite party did not

file the same probably for the reasons that had the originals

of the summoned documents would have been filed before

the tribunal by the management they could have gone

against them on the ground of adverse inference.

15.

He has also stated that when the management

stopped making payment of bonus (Ex-gratia) he

approached the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, wherein

the Hon’ble Court directed the management to make the

payment of bonus but instead making payment under the

direction of the Hon’ble Court started making recovery of

ex-gratia bonus already paid to him. Being compelled the

workman again went before the Hon’ble High Court, and

the Hon’ble High Court, stayed the recovery proceedings

from the workman.

16.

When the salary for the Month of March 2000 was

tried to be paid to him in the month of May 2000, he

requested that he should also be paid salary for the month

of April 2000 so he also returned the salary for the month

of March 2000 to the management. The relevant papers to

this effect are paper no. 9/14-9/18. When he returned the

salary the management getting annoyed from him

terminated his services with effect from 05.05.2000. He

specifically stated on oath that since the year 1974 and till

4.5.2000 he has continuously worked for more than 240

days in each calendar year still he was neither offered any

notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation by the

management at the time of dispensation of services. His

continuity of service is also being proved from several

documents like 14/4-14/8. These are the documents

wherein the workman has demanded the information

regarding his work from the management under RTI head.

Paper no.14/7-8 is relevant and important document which

is a replyof the opposite party wherein the opposite party

has admitted that in th calendar year 1998,1999 the claimant

has been paid on consolidated basis Rs. 3000 per month

for the work of electrician and plumbering and for the year

of 2000 he has been paid from Jan to March.

17.

Therefore, there is a cogent documentary as well as

oral evidence to show the continuity of work by the

workman. It also shows that the work was of permanent

nature. Payment of ex-gratia and endorsement on certain

voucher as salary clearly shows that he was being treated

as an employee who has been engaged by the opposite

party.

18.

Now the burden shifts on the shoulder of opposite

party to prove that the workman was engaged as a

contractor on contractual basis.

19.

To prove this fact they could have filed any

agreement if that was in existence, but no such document

has been filed by the management to establish the fact

that the workman is engaged as contractor on contractual

basis. It is a merely saying by M.W.1, which could not be

believed in the absence of any documentary evidence.

20.

I have also examined the evidence of M.W.1 and

W.W.1. Statement given by W.W.1 coupled with

documentary evidence carries much weight and is

believable where the statement of M.W.1 without any

documentary evidence cannot be believed.

21.

Therefore considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case the tribunal is of the confirm

opinion that a workman who is in the employment of the

opposite party right from 1974 could not have been

terminated one fine morning by the management on

arbitrary and extraneous considerations without following

the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Therefore, it is held that the termination of the services of

the workman with effect from 05.05.2000 is not legal and

fair.

22.

Accordingly he is held to be entitled for his

reinstatement in the service of the management.

23.

Reference is therefore, decided in favor of workman

and against the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1516-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ¯Vcyks

izkbosV fyfeVsM ejxkvks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xksok] i.kth ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

76@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9@05@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&36011@1@96&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/98)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Goa, Panaji now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Timblo Pvt. Limited, Margao and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on

9/5/2014.

[No. L-36011/1/96-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3985

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(BEFORE MS. BIMBA K. THALY, PRESIDING

OFFICER)

Ref. No. IT/76/98

Shri. G.N. Gaonkar and

Shri.Rui D’Sa (since deceased)

Rep. by his legal heir

Smt. Maria Marta Colaco D’Sa(wife),

Rep. by Gen. Secretary

Mormugao Waterfront Workers Union,

P.O. Box 90,

Vasco da Gama(403802)

…Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s . Timblo Pvt. Ltd.,

Margao – Goa(403601)

.…Employer/Party II

Party I/Workmen represented by Adv. Ms S. Parab.

Party II/Employer represented by

Adv. Shri. M.S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Passed on 9th day of January, 2014)

By order dated 26/07/1996, bearing no.L-36011/1/

96-IR(Misc.) the Central Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Clause(d) of sub section (1) and sub

section (2A)of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (14 of 1947) (for short the Act) has referred the

following dispute for adjudication.

(1) “Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Timblo Private Limited, P.O. Box No.34, Kadar Manjil,

Margao (Goa), Pin-403 601 in re-engaging /

employing w.e.f. 15.2.1990 Mr. Rui D’Sa, Foreman

and Mr. G.N. Gaonkar, Tally Clerk on casual /

temporary basis in compliance with Clause Seven of

the settlement dated 29.1.1989 and then continuing

them as casual only without regularizing their service

on regular basis is justified and proper? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2.

Records reveal that the reference was pending

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No.2,

Mumbai however at the request of the Mormugao

Waterfront Workers Union the same has been transferred

to Industrial Tribunal, Goa vide order dated 4/8/98.

3.

Party I has filed the claim statement. Party II has

filed the written statement and Party I has thereafter filed

the rejoinder.

4.

It is in short the case of Party I in the claim statement

that Mr. Rui D’Sa, Foreman and Mr. G.N. Gaonkar, Tally

Clerk were in the employment of the employer, viz.

M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada, Vasco da Gama

which is the constituent of M/s. Timblo Private Limited

and M/s. Panduronga Timblo Industries and it was a

shipping and clearing agents for the above two employers.

It is stated that the salaries, perquisites and other service

benefits of the employees employed by M/s. Mormugao

Navegadora Limitada were jointly shared and paid by the

above two employers. It is stated that due to financial

difficulties the salaries and wages of the employees of

M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada were not paid regularly

in the year 1989 and prior to that and this was informed by

M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada to the Mormugao

Stevedors Staff Association which was representing at

that time, seven employees of M/s. Mormugao

Navegadora Limitada working in the said stevedoring

firm. It is stated that it was also informed that there are no

prospects of improvement in the near future. It is stated

that to find out the solution the management proposed

that the services of the workmen at there stevedoring staff

with M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada be retrenched

w.e.f. 15/09/1989. Though the above move was registered

by Mormugao Stevedoring Staff Association under the

explained circumstances, the workers and the union had

no other alternative then to arrive at a settlement and

accordingly the services of the seven employees were

treated as terminated with effect from 16/09/89 vide

settlement dated 21/09/89. It is stated that as per clause 7

of settlement dated 21/09/89 the management of M/s.

Timblo Private Limited and M/s. Panduronga Timblo

Industries had agreed that those of the retrenched workmen

will be given first preference as and when required for

their shipment. It is stated that thereafter the management

of M/s. Timblo Private Limited immediately within seven

days from the date of retrenchment of the seven workmen,

started their business and as per clause 7 of the settlement

dated 21/09/89 employed in their services two workmen

viz. Shri. Rui D’Sa and Shri. G.N. Gaonkar and soon started

their business of export. It is stated that the above two

employees were taken on temporary basis thereby denying

them all the benefits as otherwise enjoyed by the permanent

staff and these two employees continued their service

without brake for the subsequent years from 1989 till 1995

but on casual basis. It is stated that the statement of the

management about the poor state of affairs of the company

is to get rid of the two employees who were on the role of

the companys for several years. It is stated that the

aforesaid action of the management is patently illegal and

bad in law for want of faith in the management and its

submission as to the financial position of the company. It

is stated that the two workmen were not taken on regular

employment in view of the legal status granted to the

workers under clause 7 of the agreement or under the

provisions of the Act and that these two employees who

have been retrenched from the services have to be given

first preference for employment. Thus Party I has prayed

to hold that the action of the management of Party II in

3986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

re-employing the above two employees on casual and

temporary basis in terms of clause 7 of settlement dated

21/9/89 as illegal and bad in law, to hold that the action of

the management in retrenching the said two workers under

the guise of financial difficulties as illegal and bad in law,

to hold that the action of the employer in not giving

permanent status and/or regularizing the said two

employees on regular basis as improper and illegal so also

the action of employer in discontinuing their services from

October, 1995 even on casual basis as illegal and bad in

law, to hold the above two employees as regular employees

w.e.f. 15/2/90 and further to hold that the said two

employees are entitled to all the benefits including back

wages and perquisites on the same basis as they were

drawing at the time of their retrenchment as per settlement

dated 21/9/89 and further to hold that the said two

employees are in the regular employment of the company

with continuity of service from the date of their joining the

employment and to hold the retrenchment done by the

employer as illegal and null and void.

5.

In the written statement Party II has raised the

objections on the maintainability of the reference by stating

that the demands made by the employees travel beyond

the terms of settlement dated 21/9/89; that Mr.Rui D’Sa is

not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the

Act and that Party I union has no authority to raise the

dispute on behalf of the person concerned in the reference.

It is further the case of Party II that in accordance with

clause 7 of settlement dated 21/9/89 they gave preference

to Mr. Rui D’Sa and Mr. G. N. Gaonkar to work for the

company and first of such opportunity was given to them

in February, 1990. It is stated that they were paid on daily

wages depending upon the availability of work as and

there was shipment. It is stated that these two employees

have already received all the money due to them from

M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada by virtue to

settlement dated 21/9/89 and therefore they have no right

to claim anything further except any benefit of employment

as per clause 7 of the said settlement. It is stated that the

work of the shipment is fully on seasonal basis depending

upon the export availability of the iron ore and therefore

the company could not regularize their services. It is stated

that as and when there was shipment of iron ore the above

persons were called for work and given the work from

1990 onwards however at the beginning of the shipment

season in 1995 when both of them were called for work

they refused on the ground that unless they are regularized

they would not attend their duties and therefore they are

not prepared to work till today. It is stated that therefore

the question of re-employment or regularization of services

of above persons as well as the question of giving them

back wages or continuity of services does not arise. It is

stated that the firm M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada

was closed due to financial difficulties and the services of

all the workmen were retrenched with effect from 15/9/89.

It is stated that the entire employment of both these

employees was in accordance with clause 7 of the

settlement. Thus amongst other and above ground Party

II has prayed to reject the reference.

6.

In the rejoinder Party I has denied the case setup by

Party II in the written statement and has asserted their

case setup in the claim statement.

7.

In view of pleadings of both parties issues were

framed by my Ld. predecessor on 31/1/97 and

subsequently additional issues were framed on 13/12/99.

Nevertheless the issues were then re-cast after hearing

both the parties on 13/8/07 (Exb.22). Records reveal that

the parties stated that they do no wish to lead additional

evidence after re-cast of the issues.

8.

In the course of the evidence Party I examined

Shri. Rui D’Sa (since deceased), Shri.Salu Fernandes and

Shri. Gurudas N. Gaonkar. On the other hand, Party II

examined Shri. Martoba S. Manerkar and Shri. Anil M.

Revankar.

9.

Both the parties filed their written submissions. Ld.

Advocate for party II besides filing written submissions,

also advanced oral arguments however Ld. advocates for

Party I requested to consider only her written submissions.

10.

Before answering the issues, it would be worthwhile

to mention that in the course of the proceedings in this

reference, this court received an addendum dated

11/10/07 in the schedule of reference by incorporating

additional terms of reference, reading as under.

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

Timblo Pvt. Ltd., in dropping / refusing the

employment to Mr. Rui D’Sa and Mr. G. N. Gaonkar

working as foreman and Tally Clerk respectively,

w.e.f. 11/9/1995 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the two workmen are entitled to?”

11.

Records reveal that Party II filed writ petition in the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa and by order dated

7/8/08, the proceedings before this court in relation to

addendum dated 11/10/07 were stayed by further

observing that the Tribunal would be free to conclude the

proceedings, which are at the stage of hearing final

arguments. By subsequent order dated 21/4/10 the Hon’ble

High Court of Bombay at Goa ordered continuance of the

aforesaid interim order dated 7/8/08. Thus, the fact that

remains is that the proceedings relating to the addendum

dated 11/10/07 stand stayed and the present reference

could be concluded.

12.

The above sequence of events has been mentioned

only to highlight the fact that the written arguments filed

by the Party I are mainly restricted to the terms of reference

relating to the addendum dated 11/10/07. Even otherwise,

reading of these arguments make it clear that the evidence

adduced before this court has been reproduced therein

and no cogent and convincing reasons have been stated

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3987

therein to support the case of Party I. Since the court

cannot enlarge the scope of the reference, the arguments

of Party I which are beyond the scope of terms of reference,

cannot be considered by this court. Ld. Advocate for

Party II in this context relied on the judgment in the case

of Suresh Chandra V/s. General Manager, Rajasthan State

Bridge and Constructions Corporation 2002 (94) FLR 843,

in which it is observed that Labour Court lacks competence

to correct/modify/amend/alter the terms of reference and

if it does so the award becomes nullity being without

jurisdiction. He also relied on the judgment in the case of

Hanjar Cinema V/s. General Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. 2013

III CLR 153, in which it is held that the terms of reference

u/s. 10(1) of the Act, cannot be bye-passed or expanded

by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, which has to

attend the dispute, referred to it, within the terms and

wording of the reference only.

13.

I am now reproducing the issues re-cast by my Ld.

predecessor vide Exb.22 dated 13/8/07, along with their

findings and reasons thereof.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

1.

Whether the Party I Rui D’Sa is

a workman as defined under

section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

Positive

2.

Whether the union has locus

standi to raise dispute on behalf

of the workmen?

Positive.

3.

Whether the action of the mana-

gement in re-engaging/employing

the workmen Rui D’Sa, Foreman

and G. N. Gaonkar, Tally-Clerk on

Casual / Temporary basis in

compliance with clause 7 of

settlement dated 21/9/1989 with

effect from 15/2/1990 is justified

and proper?

Positive.

4.

Whether the action of the mana-

gement in re-engaging / employing

the workmen in compliance with

clause 7 of the settlement dated

21/9/1989 with effect from 15/2/90

without regularizing their services

is justified and proper?

Positive.

5.

Whether the workmen / Party I are

entitled to the reliefs?

Negative

6.

What Award?

As per

order below

REASONS

14.

Issue No. 1 :

Shri. Rui D’Sa has stated the duties performed by

him in his chief examination which are that as a foreman he

was reporting for duty at 7:00 a.m. and thereafter he was

moving round the port and getting the information about

the number of barges of Party II coming to the court for

unloading; that he was preparing a report about the port

position at berth No.9 in respect of barges / steamers, that

he was preparing a list of barges of Party II which arrived

for unloading and which were to be loaded and that as per

this list the controlling power used to call him and direct

him to get the barges unloaded. He has also stated that he

used to remain at the stack point and see the unloading of

the barge and note the timings of this process and then he

used to prepare a report and submit it to Party II. He has

stated that he was also going to the transhippers for the

purpose of loading the iron ore and was getting the spillage

loaded in the truck and transport it to the property of

Party II. He has stated that he was preparing a report giving

the details of the tonnage of the spillage and also the

number of the trucks by which the spillage was transported

and giving the same to the Party II. He has stated that he

has also worked as booking clerk for sending the staff on

ship and was giving instructions to Mr. G.N. Gaonkar, the

Tally Clerk. He has stated that he was not sanctioning his

leave nor was he recommending his leave. In his cross-

examination the above duties stated by Shri. Rui D’Sa as

performed by him, are not denied but it is brought on

record that Mr.Gaonkar was preparing the report as to

how many barges are unloaded so also he was doing the

work of tying the barge with a rope and bringing the same

to the berth and was also writing the barge log sheet.

15.

Shri Salu Fernandes in his chief examination has not

stated anything specific about the states of Shri Rui

Fernandes. However, in his cross-examination, Mr. Salu

Fernandes has stated that the workers who are parties to

this reference are doing manual work and that both Rui

D’Sa and Mr. Gaonkar were involved in the work of steward

ring and shippers, clearing and forwarding.

16.

Shri. G.N. Gaonkar has stated that he and Shri. Rui

D’Sa were employed with Party II as casual and daily wage

employees. In his cross examination Shri. Gaonkar has

denied the suggestion that Mr. Rui D’Sa, the Foreman

used to supervise the work of Tally Clerk. He has stated

that the Foreman used to mark the attendance of labourers

and fixed their daily wages and company used to pay the

wages as per the rates fixed by the Foreman. He has stated

that companies Manager Mr.Revankar used to come at

the site of the spillage, as and when required and that he

and Rui D’Sa used to give the information to the office

regarding how much work was done by the labourers of

the contractor and as per their report Mr.Revankar used to

pay the contractors. He has denied the suggestion that

3988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only the Foreman used to supervise the work of Tally

Clerk and the work done at the site of spillage.

17.

From the nature of above evidence it becomes clear

that the overall control including that of supervision was

by Mr. Revankar though Mr. Rui D’Sa along with

Mr. Gaonkar used to be at the site to look after the work.

Thus it is clear that the nature of work which was being

performed by Shri. Rui D’Sa was manual and unskilled.

Thus Party I has proved by way of convincing evidene

that Shri. Rui D’Sa is a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the

Act. Even for that matter no evidence to indicate that Shri.

Rui D’Sa does not fall in the category of workman as

required by section 2(s) of the Act is adduced by Party II

and therefore in my view this issue deserves to be

answered in the positive. Hence my findings.

18.

Issue No. 2 :

It is apparent from the evidence on record and more

particularly the statement made by Shri. Rui D’Sa in his

cross-examination that their dispute was first raised by

Goa Port and Dock Employees Union. He has produced

the copy of the letter dated 21/7/95 written by Goa Port

and Dock Employees Union to ALC, Vasco da Gama, raising

the dispute at Exb.W2. He has stated that at the time of

signing the settlement dated 21/9/89, he was the member

of Mormugao Stevedoring Staff Association and that he

became the member of Goa Port and Dock Employees Union

in the year 1991. He has stated that the dispute, which was

raised by Mormugao Port and Dock Employees Union,

was continued by Mormugao Waterfront Workers. The

above statements made by Shri. Rui D’Sa are not seriously

disputed in his cross examination though a mere

suggestion has been put to him that Mormugao Waterfront

Workers Union had no authority to raise the dispute on

their behalf.

19.

Shri. Salu Fernandes has also stated that the dispute

was initially raised by Goa Port and Dock Employees Union

at which time both Shri. Rui D’Sa and Shri. G. N. Gaonkar

were the members of this union. He has stated that

subsequently both these persons joined Mormugao

Waterfront Workers Union and by letter dated 20/10/95 he

as the Vice President of the Mormugao Waterfront Workers

Union informed ALC (Central) that the said two workers

had joined their union and he has produced this letter at

Exb.W4. He has also produced the copies of membership

receipts of both these workers at Exb.W5 colly and Exb.W6

colly and the membership register of their union for the

year ending 31/12/95 at Exb.W7 on which name of Rui

D’Sa figures at serial No.726 and that of G.N. Gaonkar at

serial No. 727. He has produced copy of membership

register for the year ending 31/12/96 at Exb.W8 on which

the name of Rui D’Sa figures at serial no.635 and that of

G. N. Gaonkar at serial no.636. He has also stated that both

the above workmen continued to be the members of

their union; that they have accepted the representation of

their union and have signed the letter at Exb.W4 to that

effect. In his cross-examination, Shri. Salu Fernandes has

stated that he does not remember whether both the above

workers had produced any letter stating that they had

resigned from the membership of Goa Port and Dock

Employees Union but has denied the suggestion that both

of them are not the members of their union.

20.

It may be mentioned here that the documentary

evidence produced on record by Shri. Salu Fernandes is

clear enough to indicate that the present dispute which

was initially raised by Goa Port and Dock Employees Union

was continued by Mormugao Waterfront Workers Union.

Even otherwise, Shri. Martoba Manerkar in para 19 of his

affidavit in evidence has asserted the fact that though the

original dispute was raised by Port and Dock Workers

Union, subsequently the Mormugao Waterfront Workers

Union started representing. It is pertinent to note that

Shri.Martoba Manerkar has produced the copy of failure

report dated 9/2/96 submitted by ALC, Vasco to the Central

Government at Exb.W4 and it is apparent that no any

objection on the subject of taking over of dispute by

Mormugao Waterfront Workers Union from Port and Dock

Workers Union is raised by Party II before ALC Vasco.

Even for that matter, in the written arguments filed by

Party II as also in his oral arguments Ld. Advocate for

Party II did not agitate this issue and hence the same is

answered in the positive.

21.

Issue No. 3 and 4:

Both these issues are answered together as they are

interlinked and can be discussed on the basis of common

evidence.

22.

Before adverting myself to the discussion on these

issues, it is worthwhile looking into the nature of schedule

to the terms of the reference which is twofold as it firstly

requires this Tribunal to adjudicate on the subject as to

whether the action of Party II in re-engaging / re-employing

both these workers w.e.f. 15/02/90 on casual / temporary

basis in compliance with clause 7 of the settlement dated

21/9/89 is justified and proper and secondly it requires

this Tribunal to adjudicate if the act of Party II in continuing

them as casual without regularizing their services is justified

and proper.

23.

In his evidence Shri. Rui D’ Sa has stated that he

was employed with M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada

which is constituent of M/s. Timblo Private Limited and

M/s. Pandurang Timblo Industries carrying on the business

of shipping and clearing agents of the above two

employers. He has stated that their salaries, perquisites

and other service benefits were being jointly shared by

the above two respective employers but in the year 1989

these employers could not meet their obligations of

payment of staff salaries and other benefits which fact

was informed to them through their union and to find out

the solution in the aforementioned financial crises, the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3989

management proposed to retrench the services of all the

employees employed in M/s. Mormugao Navegadora

Limitada from 15/09/1989. He has stated that the above

offer was resisted by their union but as the management

informed their union that there were no prospects of

improvement in near future and also impossibility of any

improvement of business in future, the union was left

with no other alternative than to arrive at a settlement and

accordingly he along with six other employees were treated

as retrenched w.e.f. 16/09/1989 though the agreement was

signed on 21/9/1989. This agreement is at Annexure ‘B’ /

Exb.E1 and the same is in between the management of

M/s. Mormugao Navegadora Limitada and Mormugao

Stevedores Staff Association. He has stated that clause 7

of this agreement stipulates that the management of

M/s. Timblo Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Pandurang Timblo

Industries agreed to give first preference for employment

to the retrenched workmen as and when the staff is required

for their shipment work. He has stated that the business

of shipment of iron ore by Party II started within seven

days of signing of the agreement at Annexure ‘B’ / Exb. E1

and he and Shri. G.N. Gaonkar were immediately employed

in the services by Party II as per clause 7 of the agreement.

24.

In his cross-examination the letter dated 21/7/95

written by Goa Port and Dock Employees Union, raising

the dispute before ALC, Vasco da Gama is brought on

record as Exb.W2. Shri.Rui D’Sa has further stated in his

cross examination that he does not know if it is stated in

Exb.W2 that clause 7 of the settlement at Annexure B /

Exb.E1 has not been implemented and that the dispute

was regarding the non-implementation of the said clause.

He has however stated that he has signed the settlement

at Annexure B / Exb.E1 and that he does not know the

contents of clause 7 of the above settlement because he

was not allowed to read the same. He has stated that he

was paid the amount as mentioned in the said settlement.

25.

Perusal of Exb.W2 reveals that no grievance is made

in it regarding non-implementation of clause 7 of the

settlement at Annexure B / Exb.E1 and what appears from

this letter is that the grievance of the Goa Port and Dock

Employees Union was that the management of Party II

has utilized the services of both these employees on

temporary basis thereby denying them any benefit as

otherwise enjoyed by the permanent staff. By this letter

President of Goa Port and Dock Workers Union has

appealed to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner to intervene

in the matter and direct the management to regularize the

services of both these employees. It is therefore clear from

the contents of Exb.W2 that there is nothing in it indicating

non-compliance of clause 7 of Annexure B / Exb.E1, which

restricts only to the limited aspect of giving first preference

to the retrenched workers for employment as and when

required for shipment by Party II and Panduran Timblo

Industries.

26.

It may be mentioned here that though Mr. Rui D’Sa

has stated that he was not allowed to read the settlement

before signing the same but he has further stated in his

cross examination that he did not lodge any complaint

with the union, with ALC(Central) Vasco, with Goa Port

and Dock Employees Union or with Mormugao Waterfront

Employees Union for not allowing him the read the

settlement before signing the same. He has however

feigned ignorance on the subject, if he has stated in his

affidavit that union had not allowed him to read clause 7

of the settlement. It is therefore clear from the nature of

above statements of Mr. Rui D’Sa that his statement that

he was not allowed to read the settlement before signing

the same cannot at all be believed and on the contrary

reading of para 8 of his affidavit wherein he has referred to

the contents of clause 7 of the settlement makes it clear

beyond doubt that Shri. Rui D’Sa was very much aware of

the contents of clause 7 of Annexure B / Exb.E1, which are

restricted to the agreement between parties to this

settlement giving first preference for employment to the

retrenched workers, as and when required for shipment

by Party II and Pandurang Timblo Industries.

27.

It may be mentioned here that Shri. Rui D’Sa has

admitted in his cross examination that he was being called

whenever the programme of loading and unloading,

shipment and spillage was fixed by Party II and that he

worked with Party II till September, 1995, which means

that Party II was employing these workers as and when

required for shipment, in terms of clause 7 of Annexure

B / Exb.E1.

28.

Be that as it may Shri. G. N. Gaonkar has in his cross-

examination made it clear that he knows terms of settlement

at Annexure B / Exb.E1. He has also stated that dispute

was regarding non-implementation of clause 7 of Annexure

B / Exb.E1. He has stated that in clause 7 of this settlement

there is no mention of salary to be paid to them by Party II

and M/s. Panduran Timblo Industries. He has further

admitted that said clause 7 does not mention about

regularization of their services with Party II or with

Pandurang Timblo Industries. He has also made it clear

that he has approached the Tribunal because of non-

implementation of clause 7 of the settlement dated 21/9/89

though he has denied the suggestion that Party II has

fully implemented the settlement dated 21/9/89.

29.

Nevertheless, what is apparent from the testimonies

of Shri. Rui D’Sa and Shri.G.N. Gaonkar is that after they

were retrenched, Party II employed them in terms of clause

7 of Annexure B / Exb.E1. Thus, it would not be proper to

challenge the action of Party II in re-engaging / employing

Mr. Rui D’Sa and Mr.G.N. Gaonkar in compliance with

clause 7 of Annexure B / Exb.E1. This is because said

clause 7 nowhere states as to under what designation or

under what terms of contract, the retrenched workmen

would be employed by Party II and Pandurang Timblo

3990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2014/VAISAKHA 27, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industries. In this context cross examination of

Shri. Martoba Manerkar gains significance wherein he has

categorically stated that it is not specifically mentioned in

the settlement that the retrenched workers will be employed

as casual or temporary workers but it is mentioned that

they will be employed as and when required for shipment

and this statement is not denied by Party I by contending

otherwise.

30.

It would be worthwhile mentioning at this stage that

Shri Salu Fernandes has in his affidavit (para 6) stated that

the facts submitted by the management at the time of

signing settlement and retrenching the workmen was

malafidely intended cunning device to get rid of permanent

employees including the two workmen to this reference,

which is illegal and bad in law. I have already pointed out

in the preceding discussion that this court cannot travel

beyond the terms of reference. The above statements made

by Shri Salu Fernandes are infact a challenge to the

contents of the settlement at Annexure B/Exb. E1.

Scheduled to the terms of reference sent to this court for

adjudication is not throwing challenge to the contents of

Annexure B/Exb. E1. Thus, above grievance made by

Shri Salu Fernandes cannot be agitated in this reference.

That apart, in his cross examination Shri. Salu Fernandes

has admitted that the relief sought in this reference is

based on clause 7 of Annexure B / Exb. E1 and being so it

is not open to this court to verify the correctness of the

contents of Annexure B/Exb. E1 while adjudicating this

reference. It is therefore clear from the above discussion

that the action of Party II in reengaging/ reemploying both

the workers to this reference in compliance with Clause 7

of Annexure B/Exb. E-1 is justified and proper.

31.

Now coming to the second part of the grievance of

Party I, which is on the subject of continuing them as

casual without regularizing their services, Shri Rui D’Sa

has stated in his cross-examination that he was paid the

amount as mentioned in the Annexure B / Exb. E1. There is

no allegation made by Party I that the settlement at

Annexure B/Exb. E1 was entered into by force, coercion or

by fraud. Undoubtedly, and as pointed out by me above,

clause 7 of this settlement does not speak about the

permanency / regularization and it only states about giving

employment to the retrenched workers. Even for that matter,

as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for Party II for

the purpose of making them permanent or for regularizing

them, the workers are required to show that there is

obligation on the part of the company by way of settlement

or otherwise to regularize or make workers permanent after

working continuously for certain months or years. The

workers are also required to show that there exists any

vacancy for them to contend that company has to make

permanent or regularize their services. In support of above

submissions, Ld. Advocate for Party II relied on the

judgment in the case of Hindustan Engg. Genl. Mazdoor

Union v/s. All India Council for Technical Edu. and Ors.

2013 LLR 748, in which casually employed employees but

performing job of regular employees claimed regularization

and it is held that court should not pass orders to continue

employment of such irregularly employed persons because

it will result in stoppage of recruitment through regular

appointment procedure. In my considered opinion, the

observations above, squarely apply to the situation under

consideration. Ld. adv. for Party II also relied on the

judgment in the case of The Chairman /Director, National

Bureau of Plants Genetics Resources, New Delhi and

another V/s Shobha M. Dhore & another 2013(5) LLN

164(Bom.) in which case reference was made to the

Tribunal to adjudicate illegal termination of worker and

the Tribunal while setting aside the order of termination

ordered for regularization of service. It is in such situation

held that the order regularizing the service was beyond

the scope of reference as it is in violation of Sec.10(4) of

the Act. By referring to this judgment ld. adv. for Party II

made it clear that since in the instant case the schedule to

the terms of reference is mainly restricted to the claim for

regularization by workers, this court has no jurisdiction to

look into the aspect of termination of services of the

workmen.

32.

In his arguments ld. Advocate for Party II by

referring to clause 7 of the settlement at Annexure B / Exb.

E1 submitted that in terms of this clause preference was to

be given as and when required for shipment by Party II

and Pandurang Timblo Industries meaning thereby that

both the above companies were required to give preference

to the retrenched workers but only Party II has complied

with said clause 7. It is brought on record in the cross

examination of Shri.G. N. Gaonkar that clause 7 of the

settlement at Annexure B / Exb. E1 was binding on Party II

as well as Pandurang Timblo Industries. He has stated

that they were given work by Party II as per clause 7 of the

above settlement and that M/s. Pandurang Timblo

Industries are not the parties to this reference.

33.

No doubt, in terms of clause 7 of the settlement at

Annexure B/Exb. E1, both Party II as well as

M/s. Pandurang Timblo Industries were required to give

preference to the retrenched workers but only Party II had

employed the workers to this reference, after their

retrenchment, however it is seen that Party II has not taken

any plea in the written statement stating that it was also

for M/s. Pandurang Timblo Industries to have employed

the retrenched workers in terms of clause 7 of the

settlement at Annexure B / Exb. E1 . Thus, it is not open for

Party II to agitate the above defense in the course of the

evidence or in their arguments. Nevertheless, the present

dispute arose because the workmen to this reference were

employed by Party II as per clause 7 of the settlement at

Annexure B / Exb. E1 w.e.f. 15/2/90 and it was their grievance

that they ought to have been regularized in their service

by Party II. Being so the question of joinder of

M/s. Pandurang Timblo Industries to the present reference

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 17] 2014@oS'kk[k 27] 1936

3991

does not arise and doing so or rejecting the reference on

the grounds of misjoinder of Party would amount to

answering this reference by traveling beyond the terms of

reference, which is not permissible.

34.

Shri Rui D’Sa has stated that when he was working

with Party II there was no work for him for about one or

two days in a month and that the work of export was almost

there every day. He has denied the suggestion that his

statement that he did not have work for one or two days in

a month is false.

35.

However in his cross-examination Shri. G.N. Gaonkar

has stated that they were not given appointment letters

by Party II; that the manager of the Party II used to send a

note to them at their residence calling for work and that

whenever there was work they used to receive note from

the manager and accordingly go for work. He has stated

that this practice was in force till they worked with

Party II.

36.

Thus, what appears from the statements of both the

above witnesses is that the employment to the workers in

this reference was not regular. Ld. Advocate for Party II

relied on the judgment in the case of General Secretary,

Van Shramik Sangh, Sangali v/s. Director, Social Forestry,

Maharashtra State, Pune and Ors., 2009 1 CLR 309, in which

it is held that mere continuance of temporary employee,

casual or daily wager does not entitled him to claim

permanency or regularization in service. He also relied on

the judgment in the case of Mahboob Deepak v/s. Nagar

Panchayat Gajraula 2007 LLR 117, in which it is observed

that merely because an employee has completed 240 days

of work in a preceding year from the date of retrenchment,

the same does not mean that his services are liable to be

regularized.

37.

It deserves to be noted that in the present reference

regularization in services is claimed not because the

workman have completed 240 days of work in the year

preceding the date of termination and for their illegal

termination but the same is claimed in terms of clause 7 of

the settlement at Annexure B / Exb. E1. Thus, strictly

speaking the ratio in the case of Mehboob Deepak (supra)

cannot be made applicable to the instant case.

38.

Party I in his written submission has relied upon the

judgment in the case of General Labour Union (Red Flag)

Bombay V/s. B.V. Chavan and Ors. 1985 AIR 297. Reading

of this judgment makes it clear that the issue involved in

the same was to find out whether the establishment therein

was closed or if there was lock out. I have gone through

this judgment and have noticed that the facts in it are

totally different from the facts in the instant case, so much

so that the issue involved therein was also to find out

whether the employers have committed unfair labour

practice by imposing and continuing a lockout as provided

under item 6 of schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition

of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices

Act, 1971. Thus, to my mind, the ratio in this case cannot

be applied while deciding the reference under

consideration. Party I has also relied upon the judgment

in the case of Bhartiya Kovai Mavatta Podhu Thozhilalar

Sangam v/s. The Mangement of Universal Radiators Ltd.

(in W.P. Nos.17458, 21236 of 2001 and 23830 of 2003)

(Madras H.C.) the observations in which are on the subject

of demand of management to grant permission to retrench

31 workmen in their establishment. It is observed in this

judgment that when there is functional integrity between

the various units of the management, it is not open to the

management to retrench workmen from a particular unit

without justifiable cause. It may be mentioned here that

the facts in the above case are totally different from the

facts in the case in hand and thus the observations in this

judgment cannot be imported in the case in hand.

39.

Nonetheless, since the discussion in issue no. 3 and

4 make it clear that no case for granting relief as prayed for

by Party I is made out, both these issues i.e. no. 3 and 4 are

answered in the positive. Hence my findings.

40.

Issue No. 5

In view of discussion supra, the workmen / Party I

are not entitled to any relief.

41.

Hence the following

ORDER

1.

It is hereby held that the action of the management

of M/s. Timblo Private Limited, P.O. Box No. 34, Kadar

Manjil, Margao (Goa), Pin-403 601 in re-engaging /

employing w.e.f. 15.2.1990 Mr. Rui D’Sa, Foreman

and Mr. G.N. Gaonkar, Tally Clerk on casual /

temporary basis in compliance with Clause Seven of

the settlement dated 29.1.1989 and then continuing

them as casual only without regularizing their service

on regular basis is justified and proper.

2.

Mr. Rui D’Sa, Foreman (since deceased represented

by L.R.) and Mr. G.N. Gaonkar, Tally Clerk are

therefore not entitled to any relief.

3.

No order as to costs.

B. K. THALY, Presiding Officer

Place : Panaji

Dated : 9/1/2014

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.