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.